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 without traverse of Group I, claim 1 and amended claim 9 and 10 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026is acknowledged.
Claim 2-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, claim 2-8, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CHINA on 03/29/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 20231032807.X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Application Status
Claim 1, 9 and 10 are under examination.
Claim 2-8 are withdrawn from examination.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 is 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 term “traditional Chinese bacon” in claim line 1-2is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “traditional Chinese” 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.
Claim 10 recites a term in parentheses in line 3, wherein it is not clear if the term is a limitation to the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirovano et al. (US 2007/0292402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pirovano et al. (Pirovano) discloses a lyophilized product (dry powder) (‘402, [0001], [0024]) comprising a mixture of strains (‘402, [0044]) of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria including Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus curvatus and Lactobacillus sakei wherein Lactobacillus sakei is also known as Latilactobacillus sakei (‘402, [0048], claim 10). Pirovano does not explicitly disclose Lactiplantibacillus plantarum YR07, Latilactobacillus sakei L.48, and Lactobacillus curvatus D2; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ different strains of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus curvatus and Lactobacillus sakei including the cited strains in Pirovano’s lyophilized product (dry powder) for a desired known health benefits.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Pirovano discloses food product (‘402, [0049]) with the lyophilized product (dry powder), wherein the food includes meat products (cured meat product) (‘402, [0031]). With respect to claim 10, Pirovano does not explicitly disclose the meat product is ham. However, ham is a well known meat product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art Pirovano’s meat product is ham to provide a desired meat product for a consumer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zuccato (US 7,517,543) discloses known and successful combination of strains including Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus curvatus and Lactobacillus sakei in food products (‘543, claim 1, 2). Remo does not disclose a powder format of the combination of strains.
Stiles et al. (US 2005/0153033 A1) discloses a lactic acid bacteria including Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus curvatus and Lactobacillus sakei (‘033, [0108], Table 6]) have been used in food preservation of food products including meat products, sausages (‘033, [0002], [0008]). Stiles does not teach a mixture of the Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus curvatus and Lactobacillus sakei.
Parente et al. (Journal of Applied Microbiology 2001, 90, 943-952) discloses fermented (cured) sausages comprising Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus curvatus and Lactobacillus sakei (Introduction, pg. 943 col. 1-col.2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at (571)270-3475. 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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights