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 .
Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending. Claims 4-9 are being examined on the merits. Claims 1-3 and 11 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 4-9), and the species of the DNA barcode of SEQ ID NOs: 17 and 18 and the primers of SEQ ID NOs: 15 and 16, in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1-3 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 8, 2026.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. Specifically, sequences without sequence identifiers appear in Figs. 2A-2C, 3A-3C, 4A-4C, and 5A-C.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-9 appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, in U.S. practice, “primer groups” would be, e.g., “primer pairs”, “performing a … PCR amplification reaction on a primer group” would be, e.g., “performing a … PCR amplification reaction [with a/using a] primer pair”, “performing a fluorescent PCR amplification reaction” would be, e.g., “performing a PCR amplification reaction with a fluorescent [label/reporter]”, the “M13 primer with fluorescence” would be, e.g., “M13 primer with a fluorescent [label/reporter]”, “fragments” would be, e.g., “amplicons”, and so on.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-9 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.
Regarding claim 4, the following limitations are indefinite:
In the preamble, the meaning of “[a] method for screening … by using a total polyphenol content index” is unclear. Specifically, while the body of claim 4 recites various DNA isolation, amplification and detection steps”, it is not clear how to those steps relate to generating or using a “total polyphenol content index”.
The preamble recites “screening Floccularia luteovirens”, while step S1 recites only “extracting genomic DNA of a sample”. Thus, it is not clear if the “sample” is intended to be limited to Floccularia luteovirens or if any sample from any source can be tested.
The limitation in S2 of “performing a fluorescent PCR amplification reaction on a primer group for amplifying a DNA barcode” is unclear because is not understood in the art that PCR is performed on a primer group. Rather, it is understood in the art that PCR is performed on a template using a primer group. This is also an issue in claim 5.
The limitation in S3 of “judging by the number of fragments, the number of SSR loci, SSR repetitive elements and repeating times of the amplification product” is unclear for several reasons. First, it is unclear what is being judged. Second, it is unclear what “repeating times” refers to (a chronological time? the number of times something has been repeated?). Finally, it is unclear if or how the “judging” relates the total polyphenol content index.
Claims 5-8 depend from claim 4, and consequently incorporate the indefiniteness issues
of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites obtaining “a 212 bp fragment … and a 215 bp fragment … the Floccularia
luteovirens is determined as Floccularia luteovirens with high total polyphenol content”, the meaning of which is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear what the distinction is between “high total polyphenol content” (recited in claim 5) and the “total polyphenol content index” (recited in clams 4 and 5).
Claim 6 recites a “forward primer” and a “reverse primer”, the meaning of which is unclear. Presumably, one of SEQ ID NOs: 15 and 16 is the forward primer and the other primer is the reverse primer, but it is not clear which is which. Since the volumes of the forward and reverse primers added to the reaction volume are different, “forward” and “reverse” are not arbitrary designations.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and consequently incorporates the indefiniteness issue of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, the following limitations are indefinite:
In the preamble, the meaning of “[a] method for preparing a product for screening … with the total polyphenol content index” is unclear. Specifically, while the body of claim 9 recites various primer and barcode sequences, it does not recite any steps for preparing a product. Further, it is not clear what “using a DNA barcode for screening … or using a primer group for amplifying” has to do with “preparing a product for screening”.
The term “high-quality” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Prior art
Claim 4-9 are free of the art as to the elected species of the combination of all of the SEQ ID NOs: 15 and 16 primers, and SEQ ID NOs: 17 and 18 barcodes. Screening Floccularia luteovirens for certain properties using various nucleic acid amplification and detection techniques is generally known in the art. For example, Liu (The Genomic and Transcriptomic Analyses of Floccularia luteovirens, a Rare Edible Fungus in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Provide Insights into the Taxonomy Placement and Fruiting Body Formation, J Fungi (Basel), 7(11): 887, 1-20, Oct 2021) teaches extracting genomic DNA from Floccularia luteovirens, preparing libraries of genomic DNA fragments, and sequencing the DNA (sections 2.1-2.2). The genomic sequence data is then analyzed to predict coding genes, repetitive sequences and non-coding RNA (section 2.4). Liu also identified genomic regions associated with various properties of Floccularia luteovirens, including, e.g., biosynthetic pathways (section 3.4). However, Liu does not teach Floccularia luteovirens characteristics associated with polyphenol content. Further, the sequences of the elected species of SEQ ID NOs: 15-18 are not known in the art.
Conclusion
Claims 4-9 are being examined and are rejected. Claims 4-9 are also objected to. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLYN GREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-3240. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
/CAROLYN L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights