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 .
The claim amendment and response filed on March 11, 2026 are received.
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn from further consideration (See Restriction/Election below), and claims 3-9 are being examined.
Restriction/Election:
Applicant’s election without traverse of, Group II, claims 3-9, in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group I), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Objection(s):
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, step S2, line 2, replace “S1 to” with –S1 into--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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 3-9 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.
The claims 3-9 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In claim 3, step S1, line 1, the phrase “natural fermentation broth of grapes” is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant is trying to encompass by this recitation. That is what is considered to be natural fermentation broth of grapes?
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete “natural”
In claim 3, step S2, line 4, the terms “large” and “full’” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “large” and “full” are 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.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the terms.
In claim 3, step S3, line 4, the terms “excellent” and “stable” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “excellent” and “stable” are 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.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the terms or provide quantitative metrics.
In claim 3, step S4, last line, the term “high” is a relative terms 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.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the term or provide quantitative metric.
In claim 3, step S5, line 2 the term ”high-protein”, and lines 3 and 4, the terms “high” and “excellent” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “excellent” are 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.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the terms or provide quantitative metrics.
In claim 5, line 7, the terms “large” and “full’” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “large” and “full” are 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.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the terms or provide quantitative metrics.
In claim 6, lines 11 and 12, the terms “excellent” and “stable” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “excellent” and “stable” are 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.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the terms or provide quantitative metrics.
In claim 9, the lines 8-9, the phrase “method specified in GB/T 5009.5-2003” is indefinite because the document “GB/T 5009.5-2003” applicant is referring to is not provided.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Although prior art, Mendes-Ferreira et al. teach culturing by inoculating Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a defined grape juice medium, supplied with nitrogen source supplied as ammonium sulphate, etc., to evaluate the effect of the initial nitrogen concentration on the growth pattern or growth curves, and alcoholic fermentation profile of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The study also evaluated the effectiveness of nitrogen addition, to nitrogen-deficient media, at the end of exponential phase or at mid stationary phase, on cell viability and on fermentation rate, de novo protein synthesis, and yeast growth was followed by periodical measurement of absorbance at 640 nm.
However, the claimed “screening method of the ammonium sulfate-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae, comprising the following steps: SI: separating a plurality of strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae from natural fermentation broth of grapes, obtaining seed solutions, and numbering the seed solutions of the plurality of strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae; S2: preliminarily screening salt-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae: inoculating the seed solutions of Saccharomyces cerevisiae numbered in Si to ammonium sulfate agar culture media with different concentrations of NH4+ respectively for culture, and screening 3-5 strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with large and full bacterial colonies; S3: determining growth curves: inoculating the seed solutions of Saccharomyces cerevisiae numbered in SI into YPD liquid culture medium respectively for culture, drawing growth curves, determining a stable growth period, and screening 3-5 strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with excellent growth during the stable growth period; S4: determining protein content: inoculating the seed solutions of Saccharomyces cerevisiae numbered in S I into the YPD liquid culture medium for culture to obtain bacterial suspensions, measuring the protein content in the bacterial suspensions after the culture, and screening 3-5 strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with high protein content; S5: comprehensively analyzing and comparing Saccharomyces cerevisiae screened in S2, S3 and S4 to select the high-protein strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with high salt tolerance and excellent growth” is not disclosed or taught by the prior art.
Conclusion(s):
No claim(s) is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KADE ARIANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6083. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM -4:00 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, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at (571)272-8037. 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.
/KADE ARIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights