DETIALED ACTION
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 filed May 15, 2026 has been received and entered.
Claim(s) 16-23 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claim(s) 16-23, hyaluronic acid for species A and atopic dermatitis for species B in the reply filed on January 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical feature of a bacterial cell wall or fragment thereof linked with a mucopolysaccharide wherein the bacterial strain is gram-positive and is Cutibacterium acnes is not obvious based on the teachings of Melis et al (Taylor & Francis, (Year: 2018), vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 880-883) in view of Longo et al (U.S. Pub. No. US 2017/0173163 A1). This is not found persuasive because as demonstrated below, the references cited by Melis et al and Longo et al demonstrates a lack of unity between the claimed inventions because they teach the linking technical feature of a combination of a bacterium linked to a mucopolysaccharidic fraction [(e.g. hyaluronic acid)] (paragraph 0016), therefore, the lack of unity principle is used properly with obviousness. Thus, applicant's argument is not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 24-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being so allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim(s) 16-23 are examined on the merits in regards to the elected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for enablement, applicant has explained that the deposited microorganism, Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251 has been deposited to the Leibniz-Instiut DSMZ under the terms of the Budapest Treaty and that there are restrictions on the availability to the public of the deposited material that will irrevocably be removed upon the granting of a patent. Thus, the rejection of claim(s) 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
In regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness, applicant has elected to amend claim(s) 16-18 and 21 and therefore, the rejection of claim(s) 16-18 and 21 have been withdrawn.
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 22 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 22 is indefinite because it is unclear what “effective amount” constitutes. It is unclear what amount is needed in order for it to be considered an effective amount because the claim does not state what the desired effect is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a naturally occurring Cutibacterium acnes linked to a hyaluronic acid (HA) without significantly more.
MPEP § 2106 sets forth the Subject Matter Eligibility Test to determine if a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Step 1 asks if a claim is directed to a statutory category of invention. Applicant's claims are directed to a product; thus, the answer to Step 1 is Yes.
The analysis then moves to Step 2A, Prong One, which asks if a claim recites to a product of nature. In this case, applicant's claims recite Cutibacterium acnes deposited with accession number DSM 28251. Cutibacterium acnes is a naturally occurring bacteria. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is naturally occurring within various tissues of the human body. Thus, the claims do recite products of nature. MPEP § 2106.04(b) states that "When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners should use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A."
MPEP § 2106.04(c)(I) states that "if the nature-based product limitation is not naturally occurring, for example due to some human intervention, then the markedly different characteristics analysis must be performed to determine whether the claimed product limitation is a product of nature exception To perform the markedly different characteristic analysis, MPEP § 2106.04(c)(II) states "The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product's structure, function, and/or other properties…".
In this case, applicant specification states that the fragment or lysate of the bacterial cell wall of the strain Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251 may be obtained by delipidation of the bacterial cell wall and subsequent crushing of the strain (page 6, lines 7-9) and HA is obtained through oxidation on the hydroxyl of carbon six of the N-acetylglucosamine moiety of the mucopolysaccharide such as HA (page 6, lines 14-16). Selection of a particular species of a naturally occurring organism does not create a markedly distinct organism. The selected microorganism would be the same as the identical microorganism because selection only occurs from what exists. In addition, selection of a particular compound, such as HA, which is a glycosaminoglycan (GAG), would be the same as the identical GAG because selection only occurs from what exists. There is no indication that linking the bacterial cell wall with the hyaluronic acid as commensurate in scope with the stated claims changes the structure, function, or other properties of the two ingredients in any marked way in comparison with the closest naturally occurring counterpart. The closest naturally occurring counterpart for each ingredient is the ingredient itself. While the linking is not described as naturally occurring, there is no evidence that the linking produces a markedly distinct characteristic. Thus, the claimed composition as a whole does not display markedly different characteristics in comparison with the naturally occurring counterparts. Therefore, the answer to Step 2A, Prong One, is Yes.
Thus, the analysis must move to Step 2A, Prong Two, which asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) this evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating these additional elements to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In this case, applicant's claims are directed to a composition with an intended use as a medicament. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) specifically states that a claim is only directed to "an intended use of a claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the 'treatment or prophylaxis' consideration." Therefore, applicant's intended use is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the answer to Step 2A, Prong Two, is No.
Thus, the analysis must move to Step 2B which asks if claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05 states that this evaluation is performed by "Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." In this case, the additional element in the claims is the addition of a physiologically acceptable carrier (e.g. water). However, MPEP § 2106.05(d) states that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not sufficient to show that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mixing specific compounds and carriers does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mixing specific compounds and carriers does not amount to significantly more than a combination of judicial exception because mixing compounds is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, mixing the ingredients together does not amount to significantly more than a combination of judicial exception because mixing compounds is well- understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
In addition, applicant's intended uses are not considered to amount to significantly more. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), "Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use" is not considered to be enough to qualify as significantly more. An intended use of a claimed composition only generally links the exception to the field of use. Therefore, the additional elements are not considered to amount to significantly more. Thus, the answer to Step 2B is No. Consequently, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melis et al (Taylor & Francis, (Year: 2018), vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 880-883) in view of Longo et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0173163 A1).
Melis et al teaches Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) is an insoluble particulate fraction obtained from the bacterial cell wall (page 880). Melis et al teaches [the] fraction of P. acnes, the P40 (page 880). Melis et al teaches that the parietal fraction from P. acnes associates to hyaluronic acid (page 881). Melis et al teaches these bacterial fractions can be obtained by the mechanical or chemical crushing of bacterial walls (page 880). Melis et al teaches the composition can be in the form of a vaginal gel (abstract). Melis et al teaches the composition of the P. acnes fraction is represented by cell wall peptidoglycan linked to a glycoprotein (page 880).
The Melis et al reference does not teach the bacterial cell wall or fragment thereof linked to a mucopolysaccharide.
Longo et al teaches the covalent P40-mucopolysaccharidic fraction (paragraph 0018). Longo et al teaches P40-physiologically acceptable covalent conjugate carrier is provided, wherein the physiologically acceptable carrier comprises a physiologically acceptable mucopolysaccharide or mucopolysaccharidic fraction (paragraph 0028). Longo et al teaches the mucopolysaccharides or mucopolysaccharidic fractions contained in the conjugate of the invention are selected from the group comprising hyaluronic acid (HA) (paragraph 0047). Longo et al teaches that the composition of the invention may comprise one or more pharmaceutically active substances, such as, for example, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, FAN or steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, hormones etc (paragraph 0080).
Given the teachings above, one of ordinary skill would make the combination of the two references - Melis et al with Longo et al to create a bacterial cell wall or fragment thereof linked to a mucopolysaccharide in which that bacterium is Cutibacterium acnes (e.g. formally known as Propionibacterium acnes or P. acnes). The motivation to combine the two references stems from the fact that Melis et al teaches a fraction of P. acnes (also referenced as P40 on page 880) linked to a glycoprotein and Longo et al also teaches a P40 fraction that is linked to a mucopolysaccharide. Although Melis et al teaches the fraction linked to a glycoprotein, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the use of a mucopolysaccharide in lieu of a glycoprotein off the premise that the combination of P40 with a mucopolysaccharidic fraction would determine a synergistic effect (paragraph 0018) as taught by Longo et al. Regardless of the fact that Longo et al teaches the use of the Corynebactrium species attached to a mucopolysaccharidic fraction, that does not negate the fact that the Melis et al reference teaches the bacterium, P. acnes in association with a glycoprotein is not vastly different than Longo et al, which has the bacterium, Corynebacterium in association with HA (a mucopolysaccharidic fraction). Therefore, one would reasonably expect to create a bacterial cell wall or fragment thereof of P. acnes bacterium linked to a mucopolysaccharide using the Corynebacterium species mucopolysaccharidic fraction (hyaluronic acid or HA) to achieve the composition as stated within the claims of the present invention.
The Melis et al reference does not specifically teach that the Cutibacterium acnes is Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251. However, the reference teaches a Cutibacterium acnes which is useful as a bacterial cell wall or fragment thereof. The Melis et al reference teaches a microorganism which appears to be identical to the presently claimed microorganism, based on the fact that the both the reference microorganism and the claimed microorganism are from the same genus and species and have overlapping pharmaceutical properties.
However, even if the reference microorganism and the claimed microorganism are not one and the same, the reference microorganism would, nevertheless, have rendered the claimed microorganism obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made in view of the clearly close relationship between the microorganism as evidenced by their shared taxonomical classification and pharmaceutical characteristics. The selection of a specific strain of a known type of microorganism is considered to be prima facie obvious in the absence of sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered, and the arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a product of nature and 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness are found to be non-persuasive for claim(s) 16-23.
Regarding applicant’s remarks for the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, beginning on page 7, applicant states “the claimed invention is a “conjugate” comprising a fragment of a bacterial cell wall of Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251 linked (covalently bound) to a mucopolysaccharide. While the single components (C. acnes and a mucopolysaccharide such as hyaluronic acid) of the claimed conjugate (strain-mucopolysaccharide covalently linked) exist in nature, the claimed composition itself does not. It is a “man-made” product synthesized through a specific chemical process that results in a covalent linkage between the two components… [and that] the linkage creates a new “chemical entity” with markedly different characteristics compared to a simple mixture of the components or the components in their natural state (page 8 of applicant arguments)”. The arguments proposed by applicant regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claim(s) 16-23 is not found to be persuasive because the independent claim, claim 16 presented is much broader than the proposed arguments. The applicant within the response to arguments is arguing a specific type of structure/form of the bacterial structure (i.e.C. acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide) however, independent claim 16 is not limited to hyaluronic acid (HA) conjugated embodiment as applicant relies and the claim is not limited to the ability of the claimed complex C. acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide being able “to inactivate toxins [that are] produced by S. aureus, resulting in a significantly higher survival rate of G. mellonella larvae compared to controls (as stated on page 8 of applicant arguments)”. Moreover, in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251 covalently bound to a mucopolysaccharide and that C. acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide is able “to inactivate toxins [that are] produced by S. aureus, resulting in a significantly higher survival rate of G. mellonella larvae compared to controls) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) 16-23. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP 2145. Thus, the presently amended claim(s) 16-23 are a product of nature that does not possess markedly different characteristics and therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a product of nature is maintained.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness, beginning on page 9 of applicant arguments, applicant states that “Melis does not disclose or suggest a cell wall or fragment thereof of Cutibacterium acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide. In addition, Melis does not disclose or remotely suggest the Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251 of the present invention…since Melis does not identify the strain or provide any characterization thereof at the phylogenetic or genomic level, Melis actually neither discloses or suggests the specific strain of the conjugate claimed in the present application…the above deficiencies are not remotely overcome by Longo”. Then, moving forward to page 10 of applicant arguments, applicant states that “Longo teaches a P40 fraction from a different genus, Corynebacterium of the granulosum species, bound to a mucopolysaccharide. However, the granulosum species is no longer classified within the genus Corynebacterium. It was a historical name used in the past for coryneform bacteria identified using phenotypic methods. According to current standards, the term Corynebacterium granulosum does not refer to a homogeneous genus, making it impossible to establish a direct and definitive correspondence with the species Cutibacterium acnes of claim 16 of the present application”. Moreover, applicant asserts that “the examiner’s proposed modification requires swapping not only the linked molecule (glycoprotein for mucopolysaccharide, especially HA) but also applying this modification across different (and uncorrelated) bacterial genera, without any suggestion in the art that such a substitution would be successful of predictable. In addition, no advantages may be foreseen from the above combination, no less the pharmacological activity and medical uses of the bacterial cell wall fragment or lysate thereof linked to a mucopolysaccharide as disclosed in the present application”. Furthermore, applicant asserts that “the claimed invention exhibits unexpected results not taught or suggested by the prior art. The claimed invention utilizes a selected (deposited) strain, C. acnes DSM 28251, which has a unique cell wall composition… when this specific strain’s cell wall is covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide, it yields a conjugate with the unexpected ability to effectively inactivate S. aureus toxins, as demonstrated in Example 1 (pages 10-11 of applicant arguments)”. The bacterium, Propionibacterium acnes is shown to be known in the art to now have a new name (i.e. Cutibacterium acnes) as stated within Platsidaki et al (F1000 Research, (Year: 2018), vol. 7, pp. 1-12); therefore, the use of P. acnes within Melis et al is that of the same of C. acnes. In addition, although Melis et al discuss the use of C. acnes and not specifically C. acnes DSM 28251 as stated by the applicant, however, the reference teaches a Cutibacterium acnes which is useful as a bacterial cell wall or fragment thereof. The Melis et al reference teaches a microorganism which appears to be identical to the presently claimed microorganism, based on the fact that the both the reference microorganism and the claimed microorganism are from the same genus and species and have overlapping pharmaceutical properties.
However, even if the reference microorganism and the claimed microorganism are not one and the same, the reference microorganism would, nevertheless, have rendered the claimed microorganism obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made in view of the clearly close relationship between the microorganism as evidenced by their shared taxonomical classification and pharmaceutical characteristics. The selection of a specific strain of a known type of microorganism is considered to be prima facie obvious in the absence of sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further discusses the deficiencies of Longo et al; based on the information provided by the Longo et al reference, Longo et al does teach a covalent P40-mucopolysaccharidic fraction in which, the mucopolysaccharidic fraction can be hyaluronic acid (HA); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to use Longo et al’s P40-mucopolysaccharidic fraction and use P40 to include Melis et al’s bacterium P. acnes (i.e. C. acnes). Although the Longo et al reference establishes that the P40 fraction comes from Corynebacterium, that does not negate the fact that P40 is a widely used term in the art that can refer to certain bacterium’s that can be used within a P40-mucopolysaccharidic fraction such as C. acnes. Therefore, one would reasonably expect to make the combination to use Longo et al’s covalent P40-mucopolysaccharidic function using Melis et al’s bacterium, C. acnes in order to overcome the claims of the present invention. Given that the combination of Melis et al and Longo et al do teach a covalent P40-mucopolysaccharidic linkage (in which the P40 fraction can be C. acnes and the mucopolysaccharidic fraction can be HA based on examiners combination) and the applicant does state a significant feature to be a covalent linkage; examiner has stated above within the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection in the present response to arguments but will also state the same explanation for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection that the applicant is arguing a specific type of structure/form of the bacterial structure (i.e. C. acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide) however, independent claim 16 is not limited to hyaluronic acid (HA) conjugated embodiment as applicant relies and the claim is not limited to the ability of the claimed complex C. acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide being able “to inactivate toxins [that are] produced by S. aureus, resulting in a significantly higher survival rate of G. mellonella larvae compared to controls (as stated on page 8 of applicant arguments)”. Moreover, in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a Cutibacterium acnes DSM 28251 covalently bound to a mucopolysaccharide and that C. acnes covalently linked to a mucopolysaccharide is able “to inactivate toxins [that are] produced by S. aureus, resulting in a significantly higher survival rate of G. mellonella larvae compared to controls) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) 16-23. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP 2145. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art of record and therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness is maintained.
No claims are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nashara L Moreau whose telephone number is (571)272-5804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 AM - 4 PM ET.
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, Anand U Desai can be reached at (571)272-0947. 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.
NASHARA L MOREAUExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights