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 amendment and response filed on January 18, 2026 are received. Claims 1-17 are pending, claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-19 are withdrawn from further consideration (See Restriction/Election requirement), and claims 1-9 are being examined. Restriction/Election Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 01/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “T he Applicant traverses the restriction requirement for at least the reason that the Groups I and II share special technical features over the prior art and are so linked to form a single general inventive concept. The outstanding office action finds claims 1-17 do not share a special technical feature and therefore lack unity of invention due to "EP 2264142 A2" disclosing a method of producing a nutritional supplement from microbial cells. ”. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the special technical features of the method of producing a nutritional supplement from microbial cells do not make contribution over the teachings of prior art, Nasseri et al. ( Nasseri, A. T. , et al. American Journal of food technology , 2011, p. 1-13) in view of Garcia et al. ( Flickinger, M.C. and Garcia, F.A.P. , 2009 , Cell Wall Disruption and Lysis. In Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology, M.C. Flickinger (Ed.). p. 1-12 ) and Akdogan (Hulya Akdogan, International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1999, Vol. 34, p. 195-207) and Chisti et al. (Enzyme Microb. Technol., 1986, Vol. 8, p. 194-204) (See 103 below for details). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim s 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/18/2026. Objection(s): Claim s 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A--. In claim 3, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A--. In claim 4, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A-- , and replace “C.” (all occurrences) with –C--. In claim 5, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A--. In claim 6, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A--. In claim 7, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A--. In claim 8, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A-- , and line 2 replace “C.” with –C--. In claim 9, line 1, replace “The” (before method), with –A--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The invention appears to employ a specific strain of an isolated bacterial strain VTT-E-193585 . I t is not clear if the written description is sufficiently repeatable to avoid the need for a deposit. Further it is unclear if the starting materials were readily available to the public at the time of invention. It appears that a deposit was made in this application as filed as noted on abstract (preliminary amended) . However, it is not clear if the deposit meets all of the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. Applicant or applicant's representative may provide assurance of compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C § 112, first paragraph, in the following manner. SUGGESTION FOR DEPOSIT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL A declaration by applicant, assignee, or applicant's agent identifying a deposit of biological material and averring the following may be sufficient to overcome an objection and rejection based on a lack of availability of biological material. 1. Identifies declarant. 2. States that a deposit of the material has been made in a depository affording permanence of the deposit and ready accessibility thereto by the public if a patent is granted. The depository is to be identified by name and address. 3. States that the deposited material has been accorded a specific (recited) accession number. 4. States that all restriction on the availability to the public of the material so deposited will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent. 5. States that the material has been deposited under conditions that access to the material will be available during the pendency of the patent application to one determined by the Commissioner to be entitled thereto under 37 CFR 1.14 and 35 U.S.C § 122. 6. States that the deposited material will be maintained with all the care necessary to keep it viable and uncontaminated for a period of at least five years after the most recent request for the furnishing of a sample of the deposited microorganism, and in any case, for a period of at least thirty (30) years after the date of deposit for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever period is longer. 7. That he/she declares further that all statements made therein of his/her own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and further that these statements were made with knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the instant patent application or any patent issuing thereon. Alternatively, it may be averred that deposited material has been accepted for deposit under the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the purpose of Patent Procedure (e.g. see 961 OG 21, 1977) and that all restrictions on the availability to the public of the material so deposited will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent. Additionally, the deposit must be referred to in the body of the specification and be identified by deposit (accession) number, date of deposit, name and address of the depository and the complete taxonomic description. Copy of deposit receipt is required. 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 s 2 , 4, 6 and 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 2, line 3, the phrase " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the phrase. Regarding claim 4 , line 4 and line 7 , the phrase " preferabl y " (both occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the phrase s . Claim 4, line 1, recites the limitation "the incubation temperature" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim does not recite an incubation temperature . Suggestion to obviate the rejection: provide antecedent basis. Regarding claim 6, line 4, the phrase " preferabl y " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the phrases. In c laim 9 the limitation “derivative thereof " is indefinite because the derivatives being claimed are not defined. There is no special definition for the term in Applicant’s specification. As such the scope of the claim is not clearly set forth. Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the phrase. Claim Rejection - 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- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasseri et al. ( Nasseri, A. T. , et al. American Journal of food technology , 2011, p. 1-13) in view of Garcia et al. ( Flickinger, M.C. and Garcia, F.A.P. , 2009 , Cell Wall Disruption and Lysis. In Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology, M.C. Flickinger (Ed.). p. 1-12 ) and Akdogan (Hulya Akdogan, International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1999, Vol. 34, p. 195-207) and Chisti et al. (Enzyme Microb. Technol., 1986, Vol. 8, p. 194-204). Regarding claim 1 , Nasseri et al. a method of producing a nutritional supplement from microbial cells, the method comprising: cultivating the microbial cells to obtain a biomass comprising gram-negative bacteria ( fermentation process comprising mass culture of microorganisms, microorganisms including bacteria, e.g., Alcaligenes , also Pseudomonas , etc., gram-negative bacteria , for single cell proteins or SCP production for human food, and liberation of cell proteins by destruction of indigestible cell walls, etc. ) (See for example, p. 4 last 2 lines -Continued on p. 5, p. 8 whole pa ge -Continued on p. 9 1 st paragraph , and p. 3 Table 2 left-hand column “Microorganism” , and p. 2 2 nd and 3 rd paragraphs ) . Regarding claim 1 , Nasseri et al. teach incubating the biomass for at least partially degrading walls of the microbial cells with a heat treatment at temperature ( non-mechanical methods last bullet point, heat treatment for cell wall destruction ) ( See for example, p. 10 “Methods of Cell Wall Destruction” all paragraphs ). Regarding claim 1 , Nasseri et al. teach concentrating the incubated biomass by separating and removing a liquid phase from a solid phase to obtain a dry matter content from 2% up to 40% of total weight of the nutritional supplement (separation of the microbial biomass , concentrating the solution with filtration, centrifugation, etc., drying, and % dry weight of bacterial protein 50-65%, and production of 5% solids ) (See for example, p. 9 last paragraph , p. 8 lines 15-17 , and p. 2 Table 1 1 st row ) . Regarding claim 1 , Nasseri et al. teach homogenizing the nutritional supplement with high-pressure homogenization at least one run for at least partially degrading the walls of the microbial cells ( pretreatment with high pressure homogenization ) ( See p. 10 last paragraph 1 st bullet point, and “Methods of Cell Wall Destruction”) . Regarding claim 2, Nasseri et al. teach the dry matter content is from 5% up to 30%, or preferably from 8% up to 25% of total weight of the nutritional supplement (e.g., % dry weight of bacterial protein 50-65%, and production of 5% solids ) (See for example, p. 9 last paragraph , p. 8 lines 15-17, and p. 2 Table 1 1 st row) . Regarding claim 3, the method further comprising drying the nutritional supplement to obtain dry matter content from 94% up to 99% of the total weight of the microbial product , Nasseri et al. teach producing biomass used to manufacture powders, tablets, etc. ( See fir example, p. 3 1 st paragraph lines 7-8 ). As such, further drying the nutritional supplement to obtain a dry matter content from 94% up to 99% of the total weight of the microbial product would have been obvious or would have been optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention by routine optimization. Regarding claim 7, Nasseri et al. teach the separating is carried out with a separation method selected from at least one of a centrifugation, a filtration ( centrifugation and filtration ) (See for example, p. 8 lines 15-16) . Regarding claim 8 , Nasseri et al. teach and the drying is selected as at least one of a drum drying or a spray drying (drying in spray driers) (See for example, p. 9 1 st paragraph), and the drying temperature would have been optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention by routine optimization. Nasseri et al. do not teach treatment at temperature from 55 ° C up to 8 0°C for an incubation time from 10 minutes up to 60 minutes (claim 1), the incubation temperature is from 55 °C up to 70 °C , or preferably from 60 °C up to 68 °C ; and the incubation time is from 15 minutes up to 40 minutes, or preferably from 20 minutes up to 30 minutes. (claim 4), the method further comprising extruding the nutritional supplement with high-moisture extrusion (claim 5), the homogenizing is carried out at pressure from 800 bars up to 2000 bars, or preferably from 900 bars up to 1000 bars (claim 6) , and the microbial cells comprise isolated bacterial strain deposited as VTT-E - 193585 or a derivative thereof (claim 9) . However, regarding temperature and duration of the treatment in claim s 1 and 4 , before the effective filing date of the invention, Garcia et al. teach a treatment method for disruption of microbial cells (thermolysis) at a temperature from 55°C up to 80°C ( thermolysis method at a temperature of 60°C ) , and that depend on the organism (See for example, p. 7 left-hand column 3 rd paragraph). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to optimize the temperature and duration of the treatment in the method taught by prior art by routine optimization, because Garcia et al. teach a treatment method for disruption of microbial cells at a temperature from 55°C up to 80°C , also the duration would have been optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention by routine optimization depending on the type of microbial cells being treated by the method. Regarding claim 5, Akdogan teaches extruding a nutritional supplement with high-moisture extrusion ( extrusion of a protein-based food with high-moisture extrusion ) (See for example, p. 195 Introduction, and p. 201 left-hand column 2 nd and 3 rd paragraphs , and Abstract ). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been capable of applying this known and available extrusion technique taught by prior art ( teachings of Akdogan ) to further process the nutritional supplement taught in the method by Nasseri et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in further extruding the nutritional supplement with high-moisture extrusion . Because Akdogan teaches extruding nutritional supplement with high-moisture extrusio n. Regarding claim 6, the pressure of homogenizing at pressure from 800 bars up to 2000 bars , Chisti et al. teach homogenizing at pressure from 800 bars up to 2000 bars ( homogenizer at ~ 20 MPa which is equivalent of 2000 bar ) (See for example, p. 196 figure 5 legend). Therefore the pressure of homogenizing in the method taught by prior art would have been optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, because Chisti et al. teach homogenizing at pressure from 800 bars up to 2000 bars . Regarding claim 9: Prior art do not teach an isolated bacterial strain deposited as VTT-E 193585 . 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KADE ARIANI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6083 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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