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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 8, 11 and 24-32 have been cancelled.
New claims 35-46 have been added.
Claims 7, 13-14, 20, 22 and 33-46 are pending in this application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 21, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Copending Application No. 18/602421 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejection of claims 7-8, 12-14, 22, 24, 27, 30 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Knaup et al (US 2019/0390161, filed with IDS), is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Rejection of claims 7-8, 12-14, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29-34 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/602421, is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant filing a terminal disclaimer on August 21, 2025.
Rejections of claims 11 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Rejections of claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
New Objection
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim 7 is objected to for the following: Claim 7 recites, “A method for stabilizing…wherein the photosensitive composition is an aqueous culture medium comprising comprises a carbohydrate…” The claim recites both “comprising” and “comprises”. Applicant is required to correct this error.
Claim 38 is objected to for the following: Claim 38 recites, “…wherein the aqueous culture medium comprises…Thr, Try, and Val.” There appears to be an error with the “Try” (tyrosine, should be Tyr). Applicant is required to correct this error.
New Rejections
35 U.S.C. 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 7, 14, 36 and 39-40 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 7 recites, “A method for stabilizing a photosensitive composition, the method comprising: combining, for at least seven days…at least 0.5 mM…tryptophan in at least 2.5 mM…” The metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. There is no upper limits recited in the claim. Therefore, the amounts of days and the concentrations encompassed within the claim are unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "cultured cells of the cell culture medium" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 does not recite the term “cultured cells of the cell cultured medium” in the claim. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 36 recites, “The method of claim 7…wherein the combining is carried out for at least 14 days.” The metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. There is no upper limit recited in the claim. Therefore, the amount of days encompassed within the claim is unclear.
Claim 39 recites the limitation, “wherein the aqueous culture medium comprises glutamine at a higher concentration than other amino acids” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 39 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 does not recite “glutamine” in the claim. Claim 7 recites the term “a further free amino acid”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 40 recites the limitation, “wherein the aqueous culture medium comprises glutamine in a concentration of from 2.5 to 8 mM, and…” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 40 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 does not recite “glutamine” in the claim. Claim 7 recites the term “a further free amino acid”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
35 U.S.C. 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 recites, “The method of claim 7, wherein cultured cells of the cell culture medium are cultivated in presence of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr.” Claim 14 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites, “…combining, for at least seven days, Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr…” Claim 7 already recites “Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr”. Thus, claim 14 does not further limit instant claim 7.
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
New Matter
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 7, 13-14, 20, 22 and 33-46 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 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are drawn to a method for stabilizing a photosensitive composition, the method comprising: combining, for at least seven days…wherein the molar ratio of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr to the tryptophan is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 8:1 (claim 7); wherein the combining is carried out for at least 14 days (claim 36); wherein a molar ratio of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr to the tryptophan is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 4:1 (claim 40). The claims in question recite a “molar ratio of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr to the tryptophan is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 8:1”, “wherein the combining is carried out for at least 14 days” and “wherein a molar ratio of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr to the tryptophan is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 4:1”.
Lack of Ipsis Verbis Support
The specification is void of any literal support for the “molar ratio in a range of from 0.2:1 to 8:1”, “molar ratio in a range of from 0.2:1 to 4:1” and “at least 14 days” claimed. In the context of molar ratio, the specification discloses “In another preferred configuration of the method according to the present invention, a molar ratio of the dipeptide to tryptophan is from about 10:1 to 1:10, preferably from about 5:1 to 1:5” (see paragraph [0062]). The specification does not allow for a molar ratio of 0.2: 1 to 8:1 and 0.2:1 to 4:1. In the context of days, the specification discloses “The samples were exposed to electromagnetic radiation (day light) at room temperature for seven (example 2) as well as 14 days (example 1)…” (see paragraph [0088]). The specification does not allow for more than 14 days. The recitation of “at least 14 days” implies that more than 14 days are also included.
Lack of Implicit or Inherent Support
26. “While there is not in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” See MPEP 2163. Thus support can be furnished implicitly or inherently for a specifically claimed limitation. However, the specification lacks any implicit or inherent support for the claimed wherein the molar ratio of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr to the tryptophan is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 8:1 (claim 7); wherein the combining is carried out for at least 14 days (claim 36); wherein a molar ratio of the Ala-Tyr or Gly-Tyr to the tryptophan is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 4:1 (claim 40). As explained above, there is no support for any concept of “0.2:1 to 8:1” and “0.2:1 to 4:1” molar ratio and “at least 14 days” in the specification.
CONCLUSION
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE HA whose telephone number is (571)272-5982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:00 am- 6:30 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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/JULIE HA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
1/12/2026