DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
2. The amendment, filed 01/08/26, has been entered.
3. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/25. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are under examination.
Withdrawal of Objections/Rejections
4. The following are withdrawn from the Office Action, filed 08/08/25:
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, found on page 3 at paragraph 7, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
Maintained Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
Instant claims are drawn to bioplastics comprising a Rhodophyta material consisting essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae; agar, consisting essentially of fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae; and a weak acid comprising citric acid. Consequently, it is the Office’s position that, even as amended, (1) the independent claim constitutes a "broad generic claim” based on generically claimed Rhodophyta algae starting material and (2) the claimed genus has substantial variation because of the numerous options permitted (i.e. thousands). Accordingly, it remains the Office' s position that the Rhodophyta starting material has not been described with sufficient particularity, such that one skilled in the art would recognize that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention, at the time of filing.
MPEP §2163 states that for a generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. If the genus has a substantial variance (as in the instant case), the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. Further, MPEP §2163 states that the disclosure of only one or two species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]. "See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) "[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated."). "A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when ... the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the instant case, the specification states that various experimental examples were carried out to explore the biodegradability of bioplastics (see section beginning on page 9); however, the specification does not disclose which particular species of Rhodophyta was/were used but only identifies “experimental test specimens” (see Figure Captions for Figs. 1-3). Consequently, based on the lack of information within the specification, there is evidence that a representative number and a representative variety of the numerous Rhodophyta options (e.g. see state of the art below) capable of forming a bioplastic have not yet been identified and the species of Rhodophyta that was capable of forming a bioplastic was not adequately described (i.e. was not identified). Therefore, it is the Office’s position that even one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the entire genus.
Further, with regard to newly amended “…complete Rhodophyta algae” it is the Office’s position that this limitation is not adequately described because it remains ambiguous as to what components (e.g. parts or whole) from what species of Rhodophyta were actually used. It remains ambiguous as to what a “complete” alga encompasses (also see new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below). For example, does this limitation require the thallus to remain intact (i.e. be complete) or does this require a whole number of thalli to be used (i.e. each one complete)? Or does this limit formulations to those that have not been fractionated? And if yes, this would be in conflict with Applicant’s remarks that indicate the “complete Rhodophyta algae” includes “various extractions” thereof (see Rhodophyta material consists essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae, whereas, as it is best understood, the cited references pertain to various extractions from Rhodophyta, wherein different species may provide different extractions; Remarks, page 5).
With regards to newly amended “…agar, consisting essentially of fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae” this limitation is also not adequately describe because “agar”, by definition, is art-recognized as a polysaccharide derived from algae cells walls and not a monosaccharide such as fructose.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consequently, the specification does not adequately describe agar consisting essentially of fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae. It is also noted that the specification only recites the word “fructose” one time in paragraph [0002]; while “fucose” in found in the Figures. Although both are 6-carbon monosaccharides, they are art-recognized as structurally distinct sugar monomers, neither of which is a building block of agar (see above).
With regards to the state of the art, using red seaweeds (i.e. Rhodophyta) and/or the materials therefrom for the production of bioplastics was underdevelopment and thus necessarily unpredictable. For example, Nagarajan et al. 2024 (Sustainable bioplastics from seaweed polysaccharides: A comprehensive review. Polymers for Advanced Technologies; 35; e6536) teaches that the past decade (i.e. circa 2014-2024) has seen a focus on seaweeds for bioplastic production (e.g. see sections 3 and 7.1) but that continued research, innovation, and collaboration across industries remains essential for advancing the development and adoption of bioplastics. Nagarajan teaches the red algae are particularly diverse, including branching, filamentous, and/or sheet-like morphologies (see sections 3.1-3.1.2; and Table 1 with corresponding references). Nagarajan teaches the properties of bioplastics are significantly influenced by the processing conditions employed during manufacturing including temperature, pressure, and processing (see section 5.2). Nagarajan teaches plasticizers are substances that are added to polymer materials to improve their processability and enhance their flexibility, durability and workability with common examples including glycerol, sorbitol, citric acid and epoxidized oils, each of which offers unique advantages depending on the desired properties of the bioplastic, but the selection and concentration of plasticizers must be carefully optimized to achieve the desired balance between mechanical strength, flexibility, and biodegradability in the final bioplastic product. Thus, Nagarajan supports that the skilled artisan requires guidance on the choice of red seaweed (and/or materials thereof); and/or requires guidance on the choice and amount of additives like weak acids, including citric acid, and/or requires guidance on the processing aspects of bioplastic formation and design.
In addition, Carpena et al. 2022 (Biological properties and potential of compounds extracted from red seaweeds; Phytochem Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl 1101-022-09826-z) teaches red algae (i.e. Rhodophyta) are the largest group of seaweeds and include at least 6,000 different species comprising agar, carrageenan, essential fatty acids, phycobiliproteins, vitamins, minerals and/or other secondary metabolites, each with particular biological properties that need to be further tested in order to improve structure-function relationships (see abstract; introduction; and Table 1). Carpena teaches the extraction techniques affects the materials obtained from different Rhodophyta species (see Figure 2; and Table 6). Carpena teaches further work is still needed (see Conclusions). Thus, Carpena supports that the skilled artisan requires guidance of the choice of red seaweed and/or the materials derived therefrom, based on, in part, the sheer number of options available to choose from.
Thus, the art provides evidence that there is unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated, and accordingly, provides evidence which indicates even skilled artisans could not reliably predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed (in the instant case, zero). Therefore, the state of the art does not provide adequate written description support for which of the Rhodophyta species would predictably retain their functional activities; thus, the only way to determine if the selection works is empirical testing of each option, after the fact.
Consequently, neither the specification nor the state of the art provides sufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claims. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.). Given the above analysis of the factors as a whole, which the courts have determined are critical in determining whether Applicant is in possession of, or the specification supports, the claimed invention, Applicant has not satisfied the requirements as set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant’s Arguments and Response to Arguments
7. All of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but were not deemed persuasive; accordingly, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record. For example:
With regards to the argument that because independent claim 1 has been amended to recite that the Rhodophyta material consists essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae, whereas, as it is best understood, the cited references pertain to various extractions from Rhodophyta, wherein different species may provide different extractions. As such, particular extractions and subsequent processing of such extractions are not considered part of the claimed invention (see Remarks, page 5); the Office disagrees that these amendments are sufficient to constitute possession of the entire claimed genus and overcome the rejection because they do not provide either a structure-function correlation or a sufficient number and diversity of representative examples. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive and it remains the Office' s position that the Rhodophyta starting material has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention, at the time of filing (i.e. the Rhodophyta starting material is not identified among over 6,000 options).
With regards to the argument that the inclusion of citric acid is provided as a plasticizing agent (see Remarks, page 6), the Office agrees that this amendment narrows the claims by identifying the weak acid component of the bioplastic. However, the inclusion of citric acid does not negate (or address) the over 6,000 species of red algae encompassed by the generic claims. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the evidence for lack of possession, as set forth above.
With regards to the argument that the application provides specific experimental examples that were prepared and tested, thereby demonstrating possession of the claimed subject matter, as well as enablement thereof (see Remarks, page 6); the Office disagrees and notes enablement will be addressed following the maintained enablement rejection. Here, the Office notes that the photographs do show Applicant made a bioplastic from a species of Rhodophyta; however, the examples and photos fail to adequately describe which species of Rhodophyta was used and the state of the art teaches there are over 6,000 to choose from. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the evidence for lack of possession as set forth above.
Therefore, all of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but were not deemed persuasive; accordingly, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record.
Maintained Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. This is an enablement rejection.
Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required, are set forth in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400. They include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art and (8) the breadth of the claims. Although all the factors were considered, the most relevant ones are discussed below. In the instant case:
Nature of the invention: The nature of the invention encompasses bioplastics comprising a Rhodophyta material consisting essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae; agar, consisting essentially of fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae; and a weak acid comprising citric acid. Therefore, the nature of the invention is a chemical case, where there is natural unpredictability in performance of certain species or sub-combinations other than those specifically enumerated; see MPEP 2163. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that undue experimentation would be required to practice the claimed methods, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would not be predictable from the disclosure of one particular species (in the instant case, none disclosed) what species of Rhodophyta may or may not work; see MPEP 2164.03.
Breadth of the claims: The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers numerous species of Rhodophyta (i.e. at least 6,000; see state of the art). However, without guidance on which of the structural components are required (i.e. which species of Rhodophyta and/or which materials from which species and/or what a “complete Rhodophyta algae” even encompasses) to maintain their claimed functions (i.e. form a bioplastic) and without a disclosed correlation between function and structure, it is the Office’s position that undue experimentation would be required to determine which of the thousands of options actually work. Accordingly, undue experimentation would be required to practice the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, because while enablement is not precluded by the necessity for routine screening, if a large amount of screening is required, the specification must provide a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed and such guidance has not been provided in the instant specification. It is again noted that the species of Rhodophyta is not disclosed.
Amount of direction provided by Inventor and Existence of Working Examples: The specification states that various experimental examples were carried out to explore the biodegradability of bioplastics (see section beginning on page 9); however, the specification does not disclose which particular species of Rhodophyta was used and does not disclose what “materials” of the species were used and does not describe what a “complete Rhodophyta algae” encompasses, but only identifies “experimental test specimens” (see Figure Captions for Figs. 1-3). Accordingly, the scope of the claims (i.e. encompassing all materials from all Rhodophyta obtained by all means) is extremely broad compared to the guidance and exemplification provided in the specification (i.e. no actual Rhodophyta species properly identified). Thus, the only way to determine if the functional property is indeed retained (i.e. if a bioplastic is formed), is empirical testing of each and every option encompassed. Consequently, based on the almost astronomical number of possibilities, a non-routine amount of experimentation would be required to practice the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, because testing such a vast number of combinations would be easily recognized by the skilled practitioner to be disproportionately demanding and thus rise to the level of non-routine.
State of the Prior Art and Level of Predictability in the Art: At the time of filing, the state of the art was such that using red seaweeds (i.e. Rhodophyta) and the materials thereof for the production of bioplastics was underdevelopment and thus necessarily unpredictable. For example, Nagarajan et al. 2024 (Sustainable bioplastics from seaweed polysaccharides: A comprehensive review. Polymers for Advanced Technologies; 35; e6536) teaches that the past decade (i.e. circa 2014-2024) has seen a focus on seaweeds for bioplastic production (e.g. see sections 3 and 7.1) but that continued research, innovation, and collaboration across industries remains essential for advancing the development and adoption of bioplastics. Nagarajan teaches the red algae are particularly diverse, including branching, filamentous, and/or sheet-like morphologies (see sections 3.1-3.1.2; and Table 1 with corresponding references). Nagarajan teaches the properties of bioplastics are significantly influenced by the processing conditions employed during manufacturing including temperature, pressure, and processing (see section 5.2). Nagarajan teaches plasticizers are substances that are added to polymer materials to improve their processability and enhance their flexibility, durability and workability with common examples including glycerol, sorbitol, citric acid and epoxidized oils, each of which offers unique advantages depending on the desired properties of the bioplastic, but the selection and concentration of plasticizers must be carefully optimized to achieve the desired balance between mechanical strength, flexibility, and biodegradability in the final bioplastic product. Thus, Nagarajan supports that the skilled artisan requires guidance of the choice of red seaweed; and the choice and amount of additives like weak acids, including citric acid; and on the processing aspects of bioplastic formation and design.
In addition, Carpena et al. 2022 (Biological properties and potential of compounds extracted from red seaweeds; Phytochem Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl 1101-022-09826-z) teaches red algae (i.e. Rhodophyta) are the largest group of seaweeds and include at least 6,000 different species comprising agar, carrageenan, essential fatty acids, phycobiliproteins, vitamins, minerals and/or other secondary metabolites and each with particular biological properties that need to be further tested in order to improve structure-function relationships (see abstract; introduction; and Table 1). Carpena teaches the extraction techniques affects the materials obtained from different Rhodophyta species (see Figure 2; and Table 6). Carpena teaches further work is still needed (see Conclusions). Thus, Carpena supports that the skilled artisan requires guidance of the choice of red seaweed based on, in part, the sheer number and diversity of options available.
Therefore, the art provides evidence that there is unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated and accordingly, the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not reliably predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed (in the instant case, none) and thus, the functional characteristics must be determined empirically. However, based on the astronomically vast number permitted, it is the Office’s position that testing that many possibilities easily rises to the level of excessive, and is thus non-routine and undue. Therefore, the claims are not enabled because even the skilled artisan cannot make and use the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, without an undue amount of experimentation first.
Relative Skill of Those in the Art: The relative level of skill of those in the art is deemed to be high (e.g. PhD level); however, even one of ordinary skill in the art could not predictably extrapolate the teachings in the specification, lacking the disclosure of the starting material for Rhodophyta, as broadly as is claimed. The skilled artisan simply cannot envision the species that are required to make and use the bioplastic, thus conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method used to determine such species/structures or to test for such properties, after the fact. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, given its unpredictability, would have to engage in undue experimentation to determine which of the thousands of Rhodophyta would retain the necessary functional properties of forming a bioplastic and thereby carry out the invention as claimed.
Quantity of Experimentation Necessary Based on Content of the Disclosure: The specification does not enable the genus because where the results are unpredictable, the disclosure of a single species usually does not provide an adequate basis to support generic claims; In re Soil, 97 F.2d 623, 624, 38 USPQ 189, 191 (CCPA 1938). In the instant case, there are no properly disclosed species because the specification fails to identify the species of Rhodophyta used. Further, in cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, more may be required; In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) (contrasting mechanical and electrical elements with chemical reactions and physiological activity); see also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,496, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991). One of skill in the art would neither expect nor predict the appropriate functioning of which of the more than 6,000 species of Rhodophyta, as broadly as is claimed. Accordingly, without such guidance, the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily and improperly extensive and undue; See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927 F, 2d 1200, 18 USPQ 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) at 18 USPQ 1026 1027 and Exparte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BPAI 1986).
Therefore, in view of the lack of guidance and direction provided by Applicant there would be undue experimentation required to practice the claimed bioplastic, with a reasonable expectation of success, absent a specific and detailed description in Applicant's specification of how to effectively make and/or use the claimed invention. Thus, Applicant has not satisfied the requirements as set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant’s Arguments and Response to Arguments
9. All of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but were not deemed persuasive; accordingly, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record.
It is noted that Applicant argument both 112(a) rejections together. Arguments pertaining to both or only the written description rejection are addressed above. Herein only arguments pertaining to enablement will be addressed. For example:
With regards to the argument that the application provides specific experimental examples that were prepared and tested, thereby demonstrating enablement thereof (see Remarks, page 6); the Office disagrees and notes that the photographs do show Applicant made a bioplastic from a species of Rhodophyta; however, the examples and photos fail to adequately identify which species of Rhodophyta was used. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the evidence for lack of enablement as set forth above since it does not address which of the thousands of species actually work. Accordingly, even the skilled artisan cannot make and use the invention without first guessing which of the over 6,000 species of Rhodophyta to start with and thereby carry out the invention as claimed.
Therefore, all of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but were not deemed persuasive; accordingly, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record.
New Rejections Necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
11. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is included (and/or excluded) from the claimed bioplastic based on the mixed use of transitional phrases including a bioplastic comprising (open language) a Rhodophyta material consisting essentially of (restricts Rhodophyta material) complete Rhodophyta algae; agar, consisting essentially of (restricts agar) fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae; and a weak acid comprising (open language) citric acid. Thus, it is unclear if the bioplastic is limited to Rhodophyta material, fructose, and citric acid or if other active components are allowed because of the use of “comprising” for the bioplastic and the acid.
Further, it is unclear what “complete Rhodophyta algae” encompasses because this is not adequately described in the specification (also see 112(a) New Matter rejection, next). In other words, is a “complete” alga one that the thallus remains intact (i.e. is complete?) or is homogenization included as long as it is not fractionated? And if yes, this would be in conflict with Applicant’s remarks that indicate the “complete Rhodophyta algae” includes “various extractions” thereof (see Rhodophyta material consists essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae, whereas, as it is best understood, the cited references pertain to various extractions from Rhodophyta, wherein different species may provide different extractions; Remarks, page 5). Or does this limitation require a whole number of thalli to be used (i.e. each one complete)? In the interest of compact prosecution the broadest reasonable interpretation includes any use of any Rhodophyta that is not subsequently separated (i.e. fractionated). Nevertheless, clarification is required to ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear what agar consisting essentially of fructose is because agar, by definition, is art-recognized as a polysaccharide and not a monosaccharide such as fructose. It is also noted that the specification only recites the word “fructose” one time in paragraph [0002]; while “fucose” in found in the Figures, and although both are 6-carbon monosaccharides, they are art-recognized as structurally distinct sugar monomers, neither of which is a building-block of agar (see above). Thus, clarification is required to ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim.
Other dependent claims do not clarify the issue. Therefore, clarification is required to ascertain the metes and bounds of these claims.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
13. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
The newly amended claims encompass bioplastics comprising a Rhodophyta material consisting essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae; agar, consisting essentially of fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae; and a weak acid comprising citric acid. However, the specification does not adequately describe (1) Rhodophyta material consisting essentially of complete Rhodophyta algae and/or (2) agar consisting essentially of fructose isolated from Rhodophyta algae; and therefore these newly added claims constitute new matter.
Although the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). It is noted that Applicant did not point to support in the specification, by page and line number, for the new limitations recited in the amended claims, but only stated that “…no new matter is believed to have been entered” (see Remarks page 5).
In the instant case, the specification does not recite the phrase “complete Rhodophyta algae” and only recites the word “fructose” one time in paragraph [0002]; while “fucose” in found in the Figures and although both are 6-carbon monosaccharides, they are art-recognized as structurally distinct sugar monomers, neither of which is a building block of agar (see above).
Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that the newly added limitations constitute new matter.
Conclusion
14. No claims are allowed.
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
16. A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MAILLE LYONS whose telephone number is (571)272-2966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am to 5 pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http: //www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dan Kolker can be reached on (571)-272-3181. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARY MAILLE LYONS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
January 27, 2026