DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 04 February 2026 in which claim 20 was canceled, and claims 1, 18, 19 and 21 were amended to change the scope and breadth of the claims.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 19 and 21-25 are pending in the current application and are examined on the merits herein.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04 February 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 1; and the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), second paragraph, for indefiniteness, has been fully considered and is persuasive because claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein a reminder of the isolated biological polysaccharide compound comprises glycosyl linkages beyond 1:3 linked glucopyranosyl residue”. The objection and rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly, has been fully considered and is persuasive because claim 1 has been amended to recite “additional side chains of 1:4 linked glucopyranosyl residue; 3:4 linked glucopyranosyl residue; 2:3 linked glucopyranosyl residue; 3:6 linked glucopyranosyl residue; 2:6 and 4:6 linked glucopyranosyl residue; 3:4:6 linked glucopyranosyl residue; and terminal linked glucopyranosyl residue”. The claims as amended require all of the aforementioned additional side chains. A polysaccharide having all of the aforementioned linkages as claimed are not taught by Kelly. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent Nos. 11,572,420; 11,384,160; and 11,912,795 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
New & Modified Rejections
The following are new ground(s) or modified rejections necessitated by Applicant's amendment, filed on 04 February 2026, where the limitations in pending claims 1, 18, 19 and 21 as amended now have been changed. Therefore, rejections from the previous Office Action, dated 04 November 2025, have been modified and are listed below.
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 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 19 and 21-25 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.
The recitation “65-85 area%” recited in amended claim 1, and all other instances of “area%” in the amended claims, render the claims herein indefinite.
The term “area%” appears to be based on the area under a peak in the GC-MS chromatogram. However, nowhere do the claims describe this unit, and unusual way to characterize the amount of a component present in a compound/composition.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “area%” in claims 1, 18, 19, 21 might be used by the claim to mean “wt.% or mol%” while the accepted meaning is “the area of a specific peak (divided by the total area of all the peaks and multiplied by 100”.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
According to the Specification, the amount of each glycosyl linkage analysis was determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) as described by Heiss et al. (2009), Carbohydr. Res. 344:915 (see p.27; cited in PTO-892).
Heiss et al. describe performing a GC-MS analysis to determine the mol% of each residue in the studied polysaccharide, and reports it as mol% (not area%), (see Table 3).
The term “area%” without any limitation regarding GC-MS is confusing and is not defined in the present Specification.
Conclusion
In view of the rejections to the pending claims set forth above, no claim is allowed.
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 BAHAR A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Noon-8pm ET.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/BAHAR CRAIGO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights