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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is a response to applicant’s communication submitted January 20, 2026, wherein claims 1 and 5-7 are amended and claims 2-4 and 8-10 are canceled. This application claims benefit of 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Withdrawn Rejections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 January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5-10 under 35 USC 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the clams have been amended so as to be clearly directed to a process. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5-10 under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to include process steps, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended to include a step of administering a particular compound to a subject. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Liu et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended to require that the glucomannan have a specific molecular weight significantly higher than any disclosed by Liu et al. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Ariestanti et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended to require that the glucomannan have a specific molecular weight significantly higher than any disclosed by Ariestanti et al. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 USC 103 for being obvious over Ariestanti et al. in view of Li et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended to require that the glucomannan have a specific molecular weight significantly higher than any disclosed by Ariestanti et al. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment necessitates the following new grounds of rejection:
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 Tomoda et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
Claim 1 is directed to an acetylated glucomannan polysaccharide composed of beta-1,4-D-glucopyranose and beta-1,4-D-mannopyranose units. The polysaccharide is furthermore described as having a predominant peak of 35.8 kDa, and being a prebiotic.
Tomoda et al. discloses a mucous polysaccharide isolated from Lilium auratum. (p. 430 first paragraph) This polysaccharide is found to be a homogeneous species as determined by paper electrophoresis and ultracentrifugal analysis. (p. 430 third paragraph) The molecular weight of this species was determined to be 35700 by osmotic pressure and gel chromatography, which is approximately 35.8 kDa. (p. 430 last paragraph) Since it is a homogeneous species this is reasonably considered to be a “predominant peak” as recited in claim 1. Finally, the polysaccharide was seen to consist of beta-1,4- linked sugars as recited in present claim 1. Therefore the L. auratum polysaccharide described by Tomoda has all of the structural features described in present claim 1. Regarding the term “prebiotic formula” recited in the preamble to claim 1, this is an intended use which is not seen to impose further structural limitations on the claimed composition. For these reasons Tomoda et al. is seen to anticipate present claim 1.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (PCT international publication WO2016/085322, Reference included with PTO-892)
The disclosure of Tomoda et al. is discussed above. Tomoda et al. does not disclose a method comprising administering the disclosed polysaccharide to a subject. However, Lim et al. discloses a composition for reducing appetite in order to control body weight. (p. 3 lines 17-22) The composition contains several different dietary fibers including a glucomannan. (p. 3 lines 24-27) While Konjac glucomannan is a preferred glucomannan, Lilium auratum is also described as a source of glucomannan. (p. 6 lines 32-35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the L. auratum glucomannan described by Tomoda et al. as a component of a dietary fiber composition according to Lim et al., and to administer said composition to a subject as described by Lim et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it to be obvious to use this polysaccharide in this composition because Lim specifically described L. auratum as a possible source of glucomannans. Furthermore 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 objected to for depending from a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form incorporating all the limitations of the rejected base claim and any intervening claims. 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).
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.
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 3/9/2026