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 .
For clarity of the record, references to the specification in this action will use paragraph numbers from the Pre-Grant Publication US-20240216449-A1 (PTO-892), because page and line numbers may differ in different versions of the specification.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III (a method of treatment, claims 11-27) and the species of a mixture of Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04 (DSM 33487) in the reply filed on 28 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims have the common feature of “a bacteria selected from the group consisting of: Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), Lactobacillus crispatus LCRO4 (DSM 33487) or a mixture thereof” which is not taught in the Amaretti reference from the restriction.
This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature is actually “a bacteria selected from the group consisting of: Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), Lactobacillus crispatus LCRO4 (DSM 33487) or a mixture thereof, or a supernatant or a cell extract thereof.” The specification does not define the term cell extract, but instead states that crude cell extracts are an example of a cell extract at [0087]. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “cell extract”, in view of the specification and art at the time of filing, is anything that has been extracted from the claimed strains. Thus the instant “cell extract” is a product-by-process, and MPEP 2113 states: “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”
Othman et al. (2017; PTO-892) teaches that lactic acid bacteria like Lactobacillus produce lactic acid and that the lactic acid can be extracted by extractive fermentation techniques [Abstract]. Therefore, lactic acid is a cell extract from Lactobacillus that is chemically identical to the lactic acid that would be extracted from Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), Lactobacillus crispatus LCRO4 (DSM 33487) or a mixture thereof. Therefore for determining patentability, lactic acid meets the limitation of “a cell extract thereof” even when it was produced by other means.
Konowalchuk et al. (US-20020161046-A1; PTO-892) teaches a method of treating inflammation (i.e. reducing a viral infection and associated symptoms) [claims 1, 21], wherein the virus can be “rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, enteroviruses, cornoviruses, respiratory syncytial viruses, influenza viruses and parainfluenza viruses” (i.e. viral infection of the respiratory apparatus) [claims 19, 32], wherein the composition comprises “a sufficient amount of an acid to adjust the pH” [claim 1, 21], where the acid can be lactic acid [claim 6, 21]. Therefore, Konowalchuk teaches a cell extract thereof (lactic acid) that is administered to a subject to inhibit a viral disease in the respiratory tract, and a composition that is formulated for this method. The technical feature from the amended claims of “Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), Lactobacillus crispatus LCRO4 (DSM 33487) or a mixture thereof, or a supernatant or a cell extract thereof” is not a special technical feature in view of the art at the time of filing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 28 Nov 2025.
Claim Status
The amended claim set filed 28 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12, and 14-27 are currently pending. Of those, claims 1-11, 14-15 are currently amended, and claims 16-27 are new. Claims 1-10 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 28 Nov 2025. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 11-12 and 14-27 will be examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The application claims priority to foreign priority document IT102021000015398 (filed 11 June 2021) and is a 371 of PCT/IB2022/055436 (filed 13 June 2022). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, support for the claimed subject matter in the foreign priority document cannot be assessed because an English translation has not been filed. So for the sake of searching the art, the effective filing date used is 13 June 2022 for all claims.
The Office is not requiring that the foreign priority document be translated, but applicant cannot rely upon the earlier date from the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome an art rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 Nov 2023 and 28 April 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Signed copies of these statements are attached with this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: clear typographical error. The claim reads “or in inhibiting”. The “in” has been duplicated as its own word, and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: spelling error. Claim 23 reads “fiber” while claim 9 spells the term “fibre”. Either US or UK spelling of terms is acceptable, but the same term should be spelled in the same way throughout the claims to aid in searching for claim terms and to clearly indicate that the terms are actually the same object. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Parent claim 11 recites “a bacteria selected from the group consisting of: Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04 (DSM 33487) or a mixture thereof;”. This is a closed list of bacteria with three options: LCR01, LCR04, or a mixture of LCR01 and LCR04. Claim 16 broadens this definition by stating that “the bacteria comprise a mixture of Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619), and Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04 (DSM 33487) or a cell extract or a supernatant thereof” (emphasis added). The open list in claim 16 is broader than the closed list of parent claim 11. Claims 17-18 each state that the bacteria further comprise additional strains not listed in parent claim 11. The open list and the listing of other strains that the bacteria can be from claims 17-18 is broader than the closed list of parent claim 11. Claims 19-20 each state that the bacteria comprise a mixture of at least two or three bacterial strains, respectively. However, claim 11 states that the maximum number of strains present is two (LCR01 and LCR04). The recitation of more than two strains present in “the bacteria” is broader than parent claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. One possible amendment may be to amend the claims to limit the administration step (or to introduce a further administration step) rather than limiting the closed list of bacteria from claim 11, if such an amendment is supported by the specification and can be made without introducing new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 11-12 and 14-27 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 11, the claim recites “associated diseases or symptoms”. The term “associated” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “associated” 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the diseases and symptoms that are claimed because they would not be able to determine how the disease or symptom must be associated with the viral infection. For example, death is a disease or symptom associated with viral infections in the respiratory tract because said infections can sometimes cause death; do the claims include treating death? Claims 12 and 14-27 are also rejected because they depend from claim 11 and do not obviate this grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “said bacteria is formulated as a probiotic.” The definition of “probiotic” is ambiguous. The specification does not define the term “probiotic”. Review of the art at the time of filing reveals that the term is not defined and used consistently. Kent (Food and Fitness: A Dictionary of Diet and Exercise, 2016; PTO-892) defines probiotic as “a food containing living bacteria and yeasts”, while Law and Martin (Concise Medical Dictionary, 2020; PTO-892) defines probiotics as referring to microorganisms per se rather than food comprising microorganisms, and does not require living cells in the definition. Due to the differing uses of “probiotic” in the art, and the lack of guidance from the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what it means for a bacteria to be formulated as a probiotic.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “the at least one prebiotic ingredient, or prebiotic fiber” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in parent claim 21. Perhaps this claim was intended to depend from claim 23 instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 11-12 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of inhibiting ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 binding in vitro, does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation include: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d, 1400 (CAFC 1988) and MPEP 2164.01. Although all factors were considered, the Wands factors that were most relevant for this decision are discussed in detail below.
The breadth of the claims: Examination has been limited to the elected species of the mixture of Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 and Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04. The method comprises an administration step of administering the mixture to the subject, and requires that this sole step be capable of the preamble’s outcome of “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”. Despite the relative narrowness of the composition, the genus of administration steps is not limited, except by the functional outcome in the preamble.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor and the existence of working examples: The specification discloses that viral respiratory tract infections are caused by diverse types of viruses from five families of RNA viruses [0003], that coronaviruses as a family include several different medically relevant viruses [0004] and that the spike protein binding to the ACE2 receptor mechanism is how SARS-CoV-2 specifically enters cells [0005]. The specification discloses that antiviral drugs known in the art are not always effective and can have significant side effects [0009]. The specification provides general guidance on types of compositions that could be formed; including CFU dosages of live bacteria [0175], ratios in which bacteria can be mixed [0176], and formulations for different administration routes [0179-0181]. However, the specification does not provide any guidance on which of these disclosed compositions and administrations are capable of use for “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”, or which viruses, infections, and or symptoms the compositions are useful for. The specification does not provide any guidance on how to avoid the side effects and efficacy problems that it discloses as problems for known antiviral therapies.
The working example performed an in vitro experiment to where plates were coated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD [0195], and then stimulated with 100 μl/well of bacterial strains (100×106 AFU), supernatants and cell extracts according to the present invention (previously prepared) and 100 μl/well of biotinylated ACE2 (0.5 μg/ml) [0197]. The mixture of Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 and Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04 was not tested, but each individual bacteria, supernatant, and cell extract showed greater than the 0% inhibition of the negative control.
There are no working examples performing in vivo experiments to determine whether “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms” occurs when the subject is administered bacteria, supernatant, or cell extract for any strain. There are no working examples showing a mechanism of action relevant to any virus other than SARS-CoV-2. There are no working examples addressing the level of efficacy and side effects, compared to other art-known antiviral therapies.
The state of the prior art and the level of predictability in the art: The art at the time of filing described L. crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619) individually, and its use to modify non-respiratory microbiomes. Strgar et al. (US-20230129935-A1, 102(a)(2) art with priority to 22 Oct 2021; PTO-892) teaches L. crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619) is useful in a vaginal probiotic suppository [0194]. Dhir et al. (US-20240299470-A1, 102(a)(2) art with priority to 26 Jan 2021; PTO-892) teaches a method of treating disease by administering digestive outcome-, gastrointestinal outcome-, or gut barrier function-improving microbial strains, which include L. crispatus LCR01 [0027]. Mogna (US-20140328932-A1; PTO-892) teaches probiotic bacteria for treatment of gastric hyperacidity [Abstract], and teaches that L. crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619) “[has] a valid application in the context of the present invention” [0024, Table 1]. However, the art does not teach L. crispatus LCR01 (DSM 24619) is useful for “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”. The art at the time of filing also described an in vitro study using L. crispatus LCR04 (DSM 33487) that supported “a healthy immune response to respiratory pathogens”, presented in September 2021 (as evidenced by the Probiotical website accessed 5 June 2026; PTO-892).
The art at the time of filing makes clear that in vitro results are not considered sufficient to predict or confirm an in vivo result by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The FAO/WHO Joint Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food (2002; PTO-892) teach “In vitro tests are critical to assess the safety of probiotic microbes (see Section 3.3). In addition, in vitro tests are useful to gain knowledge of strains and the mechanism of the probiotic effect. However, it was noted that the currently available tests are not fully adequate to predict the functionality of probiotic microorganisms in the human body. … Probiotics for human use will require substantiation of efficacy with human trials” (pg. 4). The European Food Safety Authority Guidance related to health claims related to dietary products (2015; PTO-892) teaches “The scientific evidence for the substantiation of health claims related to defence against pathogens in the respiratory tract can be obtained from human intervention studies showing an effect on clinical outcomes related to respiratory infections (e.g. incidence, severity and/or duration of symptoms),” (pg. 13 section 3.5.3) and teaches that claims related to reducing disease risk need to demonstrate that the treatment both reduces the risk factor and also reduces the disease risk (pg. 15 section 4.1). Vinderola et al. (2017; PTO-892) teaches “the correlation of in vitro results with in vivo performance remains obscure” (Abstract). It is noted that the scope of claims under examination is different from the scope of claims that the FAO/WHO or EFSA would be examining (notably, the instant claimed subjects are not limited to humans); and the Office is not requiring human trials to support the claimed method. Instead, these references are cited to show that there is wide agreement in the art at the time of filing that in vitro results do not necessarily correlate with or predict an in vivo outcome of treating or preventing disease, and that additional evidence is needed to show that the probiotic has the desired in vivo effect.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention and the nature of the invention: The standard of an enabling disclosure is not the ability to make and test if the invention works but one of the ability to make and use with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation. A patent is granted for a completed invention, not the general suggestion of an idea (MPEP 2164.03 and Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The instant specification is not enabling because one cannot follow the guidance presented therein, or within the art at the time of filing, and practice the claimed method without first making a substantial inventive contribution.
The nature of the invention is an in vivo “method of treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”. The specification only provides an in vitro assay showing that the individual bacterial strains inhibit one virus’s spike protein (SARS-CoV-2) from interacting with its corresponding receptor. However, the art makes clear that this sort of in vitro assay is not enough to predict in vivo results, and the art also makes clear that the in vivo result cannot be predicted based on other art at the time of filing. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have to perform multiple further in vivo experiments, in human clinical trials or in animal models, in a representative number of viral infections of the respiratory tract and associated diseases and symptoms in order to demonstrate the invention could be used with a reasonable expectation of success to both treat and prevent infection and symptoms, with a low level of predictability of success.
The amount of experimentation required for enabling guidance, commensurate in scope with what is claimed, goes beyond what is considered ‘routine’ within the art, and constitutes undue further experimentation in order to use the method with a reasonable expectation of successfully “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”. Instead, the specification only enables a method of inhibiting ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 binding in vitro. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, for failing to meet the enablement requirement across the full scope that is claimed.
Claims 11-12 and 14-27 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163 states:
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing "a result that one might achieve if one made that invention"); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does "little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate").
Examination has been limited to the elected species of the mixture of Lactobacillus crispatus LCR01 and Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04. The method comprises an administration step of administering the mixture to the subject, and requires that this sole step be capable of the preamble’s outcome of “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”. Despite the relative narrowness of the composition, the genus of administration steps is not limited, except by the functional outcome in the preamble.
The teachings of the specification and the art are described in full in the enablement rejection. Briefly, the specification teaches that viral infections in the respiratory tract are diverse, but the working examples only teach a single in vitro experiment where the individual bacterial strains inhibit one virus’s spike protein (SARS-CoV-2) from interacting with its corresponding receptor. The art makes clear that this sort of in vitro assay is not enough to predict in vivo results, and the art also makes clear that the in vivo result cannot be predicted based on other art at the time of filing because the strains are not known to have respiratory effects in vivo. The specification also teaches dosing and administration information generally, but does not provide any guidance on which of these disclosed compositions and administrations are capable of use for “treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”, or which viruses, infections, and or symptoms the compositions are useful for.
Therefore, the claim describes a genus (“administering”) defined by its function in vivo (“treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof, and associated diseases or symptoms”) but there is no established correlation between the administration step and the outcome in either the specification or the art at the time of filing. Also, the specification does not provide any examples of administering steps that have this effect, so it cannot have described a representative number of species within the genus of administering steps that is currently claimed.’
When evaluating the specification in the context of the prior art at the time of filing, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have concluded that the specification demonstrated possession of a method of inhibiting ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 binding in vitro, but have not demonstrated possession of a method of treatment or preventing or in inhibiting, or reducing a viral infection of the respiratory apparatus in a subject in need thereof. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 14-27 are rejected for failing to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lore (2022/2023 academic year; PTO-892) teaches the strain L. crispatus LCR04 and “provides the foundation for the development of a probiotic blend specifically formulated to prevent and treat bacterial vaginosis and vulvovaginal candidiasis.” The date of being the 2022/2023 academic year is understood to be after the effective filing date of 13 Jun 2022.
Probiotical website (accessed 5 June 2026; PTO-892) teaches that results for Lactobacillus crispatus LCR04 (DSM 33487) were presented by Visciglia et al. and Rapacioli et al. in posters at the 12th Probiotics, Prebiotics & New Foods, Nutraceutical and Botanicals for Nutrition & Human and Mirobiota Health, held in Rome on 12-14 September 2021. It is believed that this disclosure may be an AI hallucination because the 12th Probiotics, Prebiotics & New Foods, Nutraceutical and Botanicals for Nutrition & Human and Mirobiota Health conference was held in 2023, not 2021.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA N DICKENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0381. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 (EDT/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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached at (571) 270-3503. 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.
/AMELIA NICOLE DICKENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/SAMIRA J JEAN-LOUIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1642
Prosecution Insights