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
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the Invention of Group I, claims 1-7, drawn to a preparation method in the reply filed on 4/13/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-7 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/22/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, for readability, it is suggested to rephrase the last lines to “…;and at a temperature of -55°C[[,]] and a vacuum degree of 25 Pa, for 24 to 48 h”.
In Claim 7, line 3, it is suggested to rewrite as “and has a model selected from one of #000, #00, #0, #1, #2, #3, #4 and extended models thereof”.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, page 2, line 8 recites “repeatedly activating the probiotics for 5 generations under the same culture conditions”. The term “activating” is unclear and undefined by the specification, and is not a term used in the art. It is unclear what step is required for “activating”. It is suggested that “culturing” may be a more accurate term for Applicant because of the phrase “under the same culture conditions”. Claims 2-7 are rejected as depending from and not clarifying claim 1.
Claim 1, page 3, line 18 recites “a way of crushing and sieving is to crush the cross-linked product with a crusher, and then sieve with an 18-mesh sieve and a 26-mesh sieve”. The phrase “a way” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the step of crushing and sieving is required to be with a crusher and then sieve with an 18-mesh sieve and a 26-mesh sieve, or if this is merely an example of a suitable step of crushing and sieving. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). If the step is not optional the following language, or similar, is suggested, “the step of crushing and sieving is achieved with a crusher, and
Similarly, Claim 1, page 3, line 20 recites “a way of washing with the distilled water is to wash the solid hydrogel particles with the distilled water for 2 to 6 times, 2 to 4 h each time, wherein a mass ratio of the solid hydrogel particles to the distilled water is 1: (100 to 200) in each washing”. The phrase “a way” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the step of washing is required to be with distilled water for 2 to 6 times, 2 to 4 h each time, wherein a mass ratio of the solid hydrogel particles to the distilled water is 1: (100 to 200) in each washing, or if this is merely an example of a suitable step of washing. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). If the step is not optional the following language, or similar, is suggested, “the step of washing is performed
Claim 2 recites “acrylic resin No. I, acrylic resin No. II, acrylic resin No. III” on page 5, line 17. It is unclear what resins these are and if they refer to a Tradename. The Specification does not define the resins and they are not a term of art. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 3 recites in line 6 “a mass concentration of the sterile normal saline is 0.85% to 0.95%”. It is unclear what the concentration refers to: the concentration of the saline used in the step, or the concentration of an ingredient within the saline. The concentration seems very low for an amount of saline to be used in the washing step and does not appear to be consistent with the Example. It appears that Applicant may have intended to recite 0.85-0.95% sterile normal saline, in which the percentage refers to the concentration of sodium chloride. If so, the following is suggested, “a mass concentration of sodium chloride in the sterile normal saline is 0.85% to 0.95%”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are free of the art and are rejected only under 112(b).
The closest prior art is Sannino et al. (US 2013/0089737; cited in IDS). Sannino et al. disclose a method of producing a polymer hydrogel comprising the steps of: (1) preparing an aqueous solution of a water soluble polysaccharide derivative and a polycarboxylic acid; (2) optionally agitating the solution, for example, by stirring; (3) isolating a polysaccharide derivative/polycarboxylic acid composite from the solution; and (4) heating the polysaccharide derivative/polycarboxylic acid composite at a temperature of at least about 80° C., thereby cross-linking the polysaccharide with the polycarboxylic acid (e.g. abstract). Sannino et al. do not teach the inclusion of probiotics, the culture thereof, the specific process steps thereof, or teach the inclusion of vitamins, minerals, and prebiotics and the specific processing thereof. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the numerous specific modifications and additions to the teachings of Sannino et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights