DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention Group II, claims 13-16, and of the pathological condition species: impairment of cognitive functions, in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
In Applicant’s reply, Applicant states that “the requirement is traversed inasmuch as
the claims of the identified groups are related as a product and a process of use of said product”, and that “[t]hat is a combination of claim categories expressly permitted by 3 7 CFR 1. 4 7 5 (b) (2)” (remarks, page 8).
The Examiner responds that Group I (claims 1, 3-12), and Group II (claims 13-16) lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of
a composition comprising a probiotic combination comprising the following strains: Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072, and Bifidobacterium breve BB077 or Bifidobacterium lactis BL050; wherein the Lactobacillus reuteri strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 20% to 80%; the Bifidobacterium breve strain when present is present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60%; the Bifidobacterium lactis strain when present is present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60%; and at least one physiologically acceptable excipient and/or carrier,
this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Vitetta et al. (US 2017/0312232 A1, published on 11/02/2017), as discussed below under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that the International Searching Authority (ISA) did not find a lack of unity of invention (remarks, page 9), it is noted that “[t]he examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA” (see MPEP 1893.03(d)).
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The requirement is still
deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Status
The amendment of 02/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending (claim set as filed on 02/09/2026). Claims 1, 3-12, and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 13-16 are currently under examination and were examined on their merits.
Priority
This application filed on 06/13/2023 claims priority to PCT application no. PCT/IB2021/061919, filed on 12/17/2021, and claims foreign priority to application no. IT102020000031223, filed on 12/17/2020. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/13/2023 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
The microorganisms Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072, Bifidobacterium breve BB077 and Bifidobacterium lactis BL050 are recited in the claims and, thus, are essential to the claimed invention. Because the microorganisms are essential to the claimed invention, they must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise readily available to the public. If the microorganisms are not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the biological materials.
The specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the microorganisms, and it is not apparent if the biological materials are readily available to the public. It is noted that Applicant has deposited the organisms (see, for example, specification pages 5-6), but there is no indication in the specification as to public availability.
If the deposit is made under the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the specific strain has been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the specific strain will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.801-1.809, applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, showing that:
(a) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be made (see 37 C.F.R. §1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
Applicant’s attention is directed to M.P.E.P. § 2400 in general, and specifically to § 2411.05, as well as to 37 C.F.R. § 1.809(d), wherein it is set forth that “the specification shall contain the accession number for the deposit, the date of the deposit, the name and address of the depository, and a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination.” It is noted that the instant specification fails to provide information whether the deposited organisms are available to the public; the specification should be amended to include this information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the phrase “work-related stress” (line 3), which renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what ‘work-related’ means. ‘Work-related’ is not clearly defined in the instant specification and claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the term ‘work-related’, i.e. what constitutes work and what does not and thus of claim 15, and therefore, could not clearly determine how to avoid infringement of claim 15.
In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 15 is interpreted to the broadest embodiment claimed. Dependent claim 16 is further rejected because it does not clarify the indefinite language of parent claim 15.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitetta et al. (US 2017/0312232 A1, published on 11/02/2017), hereinafter Vitetta.
Vitetta’s general disclosure relates to methods and compositions for use in the
treatment of depression, anxiety or a depressive or anxiety related disorder (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 13, please note the elected species ‘impairment of cognitive functions’ under Election/Restrictions above.
Pertaining to a method for prevention and/or treatment of acute or chronic pathological conditions related to stress, Vitetta teaches a method for prevention or treatment of impairment of cognitive functions, anxiety, postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder (paragraphs [0010], [0015]-[0018],[0083]-[0084], claims 1, 11, and 14).
It is noted that Vitetta’s method for preventing or treating depression, anxiety or a depressive or anxiety-related disorder includes the inhibition or alleviation of one or more symptoms of depression, anxiety and related disorders, such as the symptom short-term memory loss (paragraph [0084]). The instant specification describes ‘short-term memory’ as a cognitive function (specification page 5, lines 5-10; claim 16).
Vitetta teaches “treatment-resistant depression, anxiety or a depressive or anxiety-related disorder” (paragraph [0029]), indicating the chronic nature of the depression, anxiety or depressive or anxiety-related disorder, and thus of associated cognitive impairment (paragraph [0084]). Vitetta further discloses “postpartum depression” (paragraph [0083]), indicating the acute nature of the condition and associated cognitive impairment. (paragraph [0084]). Vitetta discloses the anxiety-related disorder posttraumatic stress disorder (paragraphs [0059], [0083]), thus indicating that associated cognitive impairment is stress-related (paragraph [0084]).
Vitetta teaches wherein the method comprises administering to a patient in need thereof an effective dose of a composition comprising a probiotic combination comprising the strains Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, and/or Bifidobacterium lactis (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0060]-[0061]), wherein the bacterial strains are present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the composition from about 50% to 90% (paragraph [0125]), and wherein the composition comprises at least one physiologically acceptable excipient and/or carrier (paragraphs [0102], [0119], [0125]).
In addition, Vitetta discloses that “[t]he amounts of individual microbial strains to be administered to subjects or to be included in compositions disclosed herein will depend on a variety of factors including the identity and number of individual strains employed, the nature and extent of any condition suffered by the subject, and the form in which a composition is administered (paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 14, please note the elected species ‘impairment of cognitive functions’ under Election/Restrictions above.
Pertaining to the condition, Vitetta teaches wherein the acute or chronic pathological condition is impairment of cognitive functions, anxiety, or postpartum depression (paragraphs [0083]-[0084]). It is noted that the instant specification describes ‘short-term memory’ recited by Vitetta (paragraph [0084]) as cognitive function (instant specification page 5, lines 5-10; claim 16).
Regarding claim 15, please note the rejection under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) above.
Pertaining to impaired cognitive function due to work-related stress, Vitetta teaches post-traumatic stress disorder, which reads on work-related stress disorder (paragraph [0083]). As discussed above, cognitive impairment ‘short-term memory loss’ is associated with anxiety-related disorders, such as post-traumatic disorder (paragraphs [0083]-[0084]), thereby indicating that ‘short-term-memory loss’ is due to work-related stress.
Regarding claim 16, please note the rejection under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) above.
Pertaining to the impaired cognitive functions, Vitetta teaches wherein the impaired cognitive function is short-term memory (paragraph [0084]).
From Vitetta’s teachings one would not immediately envisage a composition comprising a probiotic combination specifically comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium breve, or comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis (instant claim 1).
Vitetta does not teach wherein the Lactobacillus reuteri strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 20% to 80%, and wherein the Bifidobacterium breve or Bifidobacterium lactis strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60% (instant claim 1).
While Vitetta does not expressly teach a composition comprising a probiotic combination comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium breve, or comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis (instant claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Vitetta’s composition with Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium lactis, as taught by Vitetta, in order to create a composition comprising a probiotic combination comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium breve, or comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a superior probiotic combination that beneficially affects preventing or treating cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety, postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder (paragraphs [0010], [0015]-[0018], [0083]-[0084], claims 1, 11, and 14). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Vitetta’s probiotic composition with Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium lactis, as taught by Vitetta since Vitetta suggests all three bacterial strains for a probiotic composition (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0060]-[0061], claims 1, 11, 14). Further, since the instant claims recite comprising language, one would have been motivated to add all the suggested bacterial strains including Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium lactis in the probiotic composition because Vitetta clearly teaches the incorporation of several probiotic strains (see paragraph [0053]-[0054]).
While Vitetta does not teach wherein the Lactobacillus reuteri strain is present in the
composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 20% to 80%, and wherein the Bifidobacteria breve or Bifidobacterium lactis strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60% (instant claim 1), the instantly recited ranges of amounts would be within the realm of routine experimentation since Vitetta teaches wherein the bacterial strains are present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the composition from about 50% to 90% (paragraph [0125]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimal concentration ranges of the bacteria in the probiotic combination, in order to identify how much is needed for successfully preventing or treating cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety, postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Further, one would expect success since Vitetta teaches that “[t]he amounts of individual microbial strains to be administered to subjects or to be included in compositions disclosed herein will depend on a variety of factors including the identity and number of individual strains employed, the nature and extent of any condition suffered by the subject, and the form in which a composition is administered” (paragraph [0103]), and therefore, manipulation of the bacterial concentration based on Vitetta’s teachings would be within the purview of an artisan. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 part II A.
Vitetta does not teach wherein Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, or Bifidobacterium lactis are the deposited Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072, Bifidobacterium breve BB077, or Bifidobacterium lactis BL050, respectively (instant claim 1).
The instant specification and claims describe that the claimed strains are used for prevention and treatment of impairment of cognitive functions, anxiety, postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, including impairment of the cognitive function ‘short-term memory’ (specification, page 4, line 24 - page 5, line 10; claims 13 and 16).
Based on Vitetta’s teachings, it is highly likely that Vitetta’s Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium lactis, and Applicant’s Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, and Bifidobacterium lactis are the same strains, respectively, since Vitetta’s and Applicant’s strains are both used to prevent and treat impairment of the cognitive function short-term memory, anxiety, postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder (Vitetta, paragraphs [0010], [0015]-[0018], [0053]-[0054], [0060]-[0061], [0083]-[0084], claims 1, 11, 14; instant specification, page 4, line 24 - page 5, line 10; claims 13 and 16).
However, Vitetta does not teach wherein Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, or Bifidobacterium lactis are the deposited Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072, Bifidobacterium breve BB077, or Bifidobacterium lactis BL050, respectively. If there should be a slight variation between Vitetta’s strains and the Applicant’s deposited strains, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the claimed Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072, Bifidobacterium breve BB077, or Bifidobacterium lactis BL050 to substitute Vitetta’s Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium breve, or Bifidobacterium lactis in modified Vitetta’s method to prevent and treat impairment of the cognitive function ‘short-term memory’, anxiety, postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergonzelli et al. (EP 2609814 A1, published on 07/03/2011), hereinafter Bergonzelli , in view of Vitetta et al. (US 2017/0312232 A1, published on 11/02/2017), hereinafter Vitetta.
Bergonzelli’s general disclosure relates to Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for promoting the establishment of healthy and normal cognitive function in young mammals (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 13, please note the elected species ‘impairment of cognitive functions’ under Election/Restrictions above.
Pertaining to a method for prevention of acute or chronic pathological conditions related to stress, Bergonzelli teaches a method for prevention and/or treatment of acute or chronic impairment of cognitive functions related to stress (paragraph [0001], [0003], [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0034], [0042], [0045]-[0050]; see abstract), the method comprising administering to a patient in need thereof an effective dose of a composition comprising a probiotic combination comprising the strains Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis (paragraphs [0001], [0042], [0045]-[0046], [0051], claims 1, 16, 18-19), and at least one physiologically acceptable carrier (paragraph [0055]).
Pertaining to impairment of cognitive functions being acute or chronic, Bergonzelli teaches administering the probiotic short-term or long-term (paragraph [0067]), indicating wherein the condition can be acute or chronic.
Regarding claim 14, please note the elected species ‘impairment of cognitive functions’ under Election/Restrictions above. Pertaining to the condition, Bergonzelli teaches wherein the acute or chronic pathological condition is impairment of cognitive functions (paragraphs [0001], [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0034]; see abstract).
Bergonzelli does not teach wherein the Lactobacillus reuteri strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 20% to 80%, and wherein the Bifidobacterium lactis strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60% (instant claim 1).
Vitetta’s general disclosure relates to methods and compositions for use in the
treatment of depression, anxiety or a depressive or anxiety related disorder (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 13, pertaining to the composition, Vitetta teaches a composition comprising a probiotic combination for preventing or treating short-term memory loss (comprising the strains Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis ((paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0060]-[0061], [0084]), wherein the bacterial strains are present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the composition from about 50% to 90% (paragraph [0125]),
In addition, Vitetta discloses wherein “[t]he amounts of individual microbial strains to be administered to subjects or to be included in compositions disclosed herein will depend on a variety of factors including the identity and number of individual strains employed, the nature and extent of any condition suffered by the subject, and the form in which a composition is administered (paragraph [0103]).
While Bergonzelli does not teach wherein the Lactobacillus reuteri strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 20% to 80%, and wherein the Bifidobacterium lactis strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60% (instant claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bergonzelli’s method with Vitetta’s teachings on probiotic concentrations in a composition, in order to have created a method for preventing and/or treating the impairment of cognitive functions comprising administering a composition comprising a probiotic combination comprising the bacterial strains Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis wherein the strains are present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from about 50% to 90%. One would have been motivated to do so to increase the effectiveness of the method for treating and/or preventing the impairment of cognitive functions, since Vitetta’s probiotic composition comprising Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis is used for preventing or treating short-term memory loss (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0060]-[0061], [0084]).
While modified Bergonzelli does not teach wherein the Lactobacillus reuteri strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 20% to 80%, and wherein Bifidobacterium lactis strain is present in the composition in percentages by weight on the total weight of the probiotic combination from 10% to 60% (instant claim 1), the instantly recited ranges of amounts would be within the realm of routine experimentation since Vitetta teaches wherein the bacterial strains are present in the composition in percentage by weight on the total weight of the composition from about 50% to 90% (paragraph [0125]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimal concentration ranges of the bacteria in the probiotic combination, in order to identify how much is needed for successful prevention and/or treatment of impairment of cognitive functions. Further, one would expect success since Bergonzelli’s teachings are directed to multiple different strains (Bergonzelli, claims 1,16, 18-19), and therefore, manipulation of the bacterial concentration based on Vitetta’s teachings would be within the purview of an artisan. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 part II A.
Modified Bergonzelli does not teach wherein Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis are the deposited Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072 and Bifidobacterium lactis BL050, respectively (instant claim 1).
The instant specification and claims describe that the claimed strains are used for prevention and/or treatment of impairment of cognitive functions, including impairment of the cognitive function ‘attention’ (specification, page 4, line 24 - page 5, line 10; claims 13 and 16).
Based on Bergonzelli’s teachings, it is highly likely that Bergonzelli’s Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis and Applicant’s Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis are the same strains, respectively, since Bergonzelli’s and Applicant’s strains are both used to prevent and/or treat impairment of cognitive functions including the impaired cognitive function ‘attention’ (Bergonzelli, paragraphs [0001], [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0034]; instant specification, page 4, line 24 - page 5, line 10; claims 13 and 16).
However, modified Bergonzelli does not teach wherein Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis are the deposited Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072 and Bifidobacterium lactis BL050, respectively. If there should be a slight variation between Bergonzelli’s strains and Applicant’s deposited strains, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the claimed Lactobacillus reuteri PBS072 and Bifidobacterium lactis BL050 to substitute Bergonzelli’s Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis in modified Bergonzelli’s method to prevent and/or treat impairment of cognitive functions including impairment of attention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA ZINGARELLI whose telephone number is (703)756-1799. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/SANDRA ZINGARELLI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights