Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered.
Detailed Action
This office action is a response to applicant’s communication submitted June 9, 2026, wherein claims 1, 6, and 7 are amended. This application claims benefit of provisional application 63/345095, filed May 24, 2022.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 5-7 as amended are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s amendment, submitted June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Tomoda et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as claim 1 has been amended to require that the glucomannan be from konjac, which would be expected to necessitate a structure different than that of the L. auratum glucomannan described by Tomoda et al. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 USC 103 for being obvious over Tomoda et al. in view of Lim et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as claim 1 has been amended to require that the glucomannan be from konjac, which would be expected to necessitate a structure different than that of the L. auratum glucomannan described by Tomoda et al. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
The following new grounds of rejection are introduced:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao et al. 2022 (“Protective effects of konjac glucomannan on gut microbiome with antibiotic perturbation in mice”, Reference included with PTO-892)
Independent claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising a Konjac glucomannan polysaccharide having a mw between 0.6-107 kDa and a predominant peak at about 35.8 kDa by gel permeation chromatography. Neither the claims nor the specification define the limits of the term “about” in this context.
Mao et al. discloses enzymatic degradation of Konjac glucomannan (KGM). (p. 2 section 2.2) Molecular weight of degraded samples was determined by high-pressure gel permeation chromatography. (p. 2 section 2.3) One fraction was seen to have a mw of about 2.83x104 Da. (p. 3 section 3.1) this is about 28 kDa, and can be reasonably interpreted as falling within the scope of “about 35.8 kDa” recited in present claim 1, thereby anticipating the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. 2. (“
Effects of konjac glucomannan with different molecular weights on gut microflora with antibiotic perturbance in in vitro fecal fermentation”, Reference included with PTO-892)
Independent claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising a Konjac glucomannan polysaccharide having a mw between 0.6-107 kDa and a predominant peak at about 35.8 kDa by gel permeation chromatography. Neither the claims nor the specification define the limits of the term “about” in this context.
Mao et al. discloses a study of the protective effect of konjac glucomannan and two acid-hydrolyzed derivatives an antibiotic-induced perturbation of gut microflora. (p. 2 left column second paragraph) Molecular size was analyzed by gel permeation chromatography. (p. 2 right column second paragraph) one of the fractions (KGM1) was seen to have a molecular weight fraction around 1.59 x104 Da. (p. 4 table 1) The different size fractions were seen to have different production of short-chain fatty acids when fermented by fecal bacteria (pp. 4-5 section 3.3) indicating that this property is affected by molecular weight. Different fractions also had different effects on the specific composition of fecal flora species. (pp. 5-9 section 3.4)
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the molecular weight of 1.59 x104 Da described for fraction KGM1 is not “approximately 35.8 kDa” as recited in present claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the molecular weight distribution of the hydrolyzed KGM fractions described by Mao 2. Specifically, the molecular weight of the fraction is seen to be a result-effective variable, which affects the microbial fermentation and population distribution of fecal microflora, and thus the prebiotic activity. Additionally, since Mao 2 describes the production of fractions having different molecular weights, it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in adjusting the reaction conditions so as to produce fractions having particular other molecular weight distributions.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to administer the hydrolyzed KGM fractions described by Mao et al. to a living subject, in order to produce a prebiotic effect. In particular, Mao et al. 2 suggests performing further in vivo experiments with these polysaccharides. (p. 9 section 4)
Regarding the limitations “protecting an intestinal mucosa” and “modulating an intestinal immunity,” recited in the preambles of claims 5 and 6, these limitations describe intended uses that do not require any additional structural features of the glucomannan or the subject. Still further, the intended effects, describing the fermentation of the glucomannan by certain intestinal bacteria, and the recitation of certain effects on the intestinal mucosa, these limitations are seen to merely recite the effects of orally administering the claimed glucomannan to a subject, and do not require any particular circumstance, such as the subject suffering from a particular health condition. As discussed in MPEP 2145(II), “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” Since the effect of the claimed glucomannan on the intestinal barrier or intestinal immunity is such an additional advantage or latent property, it does not render claims 5 and 6 patentable over the prior art.
Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected. Claim 7 is seen to be allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-3:00pm.
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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREA OLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights