DETAILED 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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-36 were originally filed November 27, 2023.
The amendment received May 31, 2024 canceled claims 136 and added new claims 37-56.
The amendment received July 22, 2026 added new claim 57.
Claims 37-57 are currently pending.
Claims 54-57 are currently under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 54-57; a method of administering a polypeptide) in the reply filed on July 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 37-53 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected naturally occurring products, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 22, 2026.
Applicant’s election of improving glucose tolerance, human, type II diabetes (T2D), SEQ ID NO: 4, no additional reagents, and a single administration step in the reply filed on July 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
The present application is a 371 (National Stage) of PCT/EP2022/065070 filed June 2, 2022 which claims foreign priority to EP 22153847.3 filed January 28, 2022; EP 22153678.2 filed January 27, 2022; and EP 21177546.5 filed June 3, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 22, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d).
See pages 14, 18 (6x-His), 82 (6x-His), and 88 (6x-His).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Figures 1, 26, 32, and 33.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See pages 7, 8, 14, 55, 56, 71, and 74.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 54 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should be independent particularly since rejoinder is not possible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 54 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should only be drawn to methods of administering polypeptides. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities: all acronyms should be accompanied by the full name with the first recitation (see T2D, FLD, and ALS). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 57 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 57 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Ruminococcus torques” should read “Ruminococcus torques”. Appropriate correction is required.
Sequence Interpretation
The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising a sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a 2mer of SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with any N-/C-terminal additions or any 5’/3’ additions, “consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 and the same length as SEQ ID NO: 1, and “selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3. Any claim requiring a specific percent identity, necessarily requires at least the recited percent identity.
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.
Claims 54-57 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. This is a written description rejection.
The present claims are drawn to methods of administering various polypeptides of Ruminococcus torques (e.g. polypeptides based on fibronectin type III domain of irisin like peptide; SEQ ID NOs: 4, 5, 19, 20, 27, 33-37, 95, 107-111, 165, 168, 173, 176, 181, 188, 193, 196, 201, 208, 210-213, 229, 232-235, 243-246, 262, and 265-268) or Ruminococcus torques to an individual or a subject. However, the claims also have various variants and/or fragments of the recited sequences (e.g. at least 60% but less than 99% identical; 1-40 amino acid substitutions, a fragment with at least 10 amino acids, a variant of that fragment having 1-5 amino acid substitutions – i.e. only 5 amino acids have to be the same as the base polypeptide, less than 50 amino acids, truncation of residues 1-67 – N-terminus and also including 1-10 substitutions, a truncation of up to 21 amino acids at the C-terminus and also including 1-30 substitutions, and combinations thereof). Therefore, the claims read on sequences with very little sequence identity (e.g. 6% - 5mer of 87mer of SEQ ID NO: 4). In addition, the claims read on thousands of variants and fragments of the present polypeptides. Do to the excessive variety of the polypeptides, it would not be expected that all the claimed polypeptides would have the same function including the functions recited in the claims of inducing weight loss, improving glucose tolerance, reducing body fat mass, increasing lean body mass, reducing the lipid content of adipocytes, inducing thermogenesis in white adipocytes, increasing cortical thickness of the tibia bone, stimulating bone formation, treating metabolic disorders, treating muscle disorders and injuries, or treating bone disorders.
With regard to the written description requirement, the attention of the Applicant is directed to The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which held that a “written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials.” University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (1997), quoting Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (bracketed material in original) [The claims at issue in University of California v. Eli Lilly defined the invention by function of the claimed DNA (encoding insulin)] (the case is referred to herein as “Lilly”).
Additionally, it is noted that written description is legally distinct from enablement: “Although the two concepts are entwined, they are distinct and each is evaluated under separate legal criteria. The written description requirement, a question of fact, ensures that the inventor conveys to others that he or she had possession of the claimed invention; whereas, the enablement requirement, a question of law, ensures that the inventor conveys to others how to make and use the claimed invention.” See 1242 OG 169 (January 30, 2001) citing University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Although directed to DNA compounds, this Eli Lilly holding would be deemed to be applicable to any compound or a generic of compounds; which requires a representative sample of compounds and/or a showing of sufficient identifying characteristics; to demonstrate possession of the compound or generic(s). In this regard, applicant is further referred to University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997); “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 USC 112, first paragraph, ‘Written Description’ Requirement” published in 1242 OG 168-178 (January 30, 2001); and Univ. Of Rochester v G. D. Searle and Co. 249 F. Supp. 2d 216 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) affirmed by the CAFC on February 13, 2004 (03-1304) publication pending.
Additionally, Lilly sets forth a two part test for written description:
A description of a genus of cDNA’s may be achieved by means of a recitation of:
a representative number of cDNA’s, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus OR of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus.
See Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) at 1569.
Finally, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that:
...To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
Additionally, Cf. University of Rochester v G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc., No. 03-1304, 2004 WL 260813 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 13, 2004) held that:
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods.
In the present instance, the specification discloses only limited examples that are not representative of the claimed genus of methods of administering various polypeptides of Ruminococcus torques (e.g. polypeptides based on fibronectin type III domain of irisin like peptide; SEQ ID NOs: 4, 5, 19, 20, 27, 33-37, 95, 107-111, 165, 168, 173, 176, 181, 188, 193, 196, 201, 208, 210-213, 229, 232-235, 243-246, 262, and 265-268 including various variants and fragments) or Ruminococcus torques to an individual or a subject for inducing weight loss, improving glucose tolerance, reducing body fat mass, increasing lean body mass, reducing the lipid content of adipocytes, inducing thermogenesis in white adipocytes, increasing cortical thickness of the tibia bone, stimulating bone formation, treating metabolic disorders, treating muscle disorders and injuries, or treating bone disorders; nor do the claims recite sufficient structural features which are common to members of the genus sufficient to demonstrate possession of the genus. The instant claims define the variants and fragments by the functional limitation of inducing weight loss, improving glucose tolerance, reducing body fat mass, increasing lean body mass, reducing the lipid content of adipocytes, inducing thermogenesis in white adipocytes, increasing cortical thickness of the tibia bone, stimulating bone formation, treating metabolic disorders, treating muscle disorders and injuries, or treating bone disorders. The claimed variants and fragments are only defined by functional properties. The CAFC held that a functional definition is insufficient to adequately describe a product, therefore, an adequate written description not based on a functional definition is necessary.
The Examiner further notes the present claims stated by Applicant are broader in scope that those that were held to be impermissible in Lilly because, unlike Lilly, Applicants’ claims encompass a vast number of variants and fragments including at least 60% but less than 99% identical; 1-40 amino acid substitutions, a fragment with at least 10 amino acids, a variant of that fragment having 1-5 amino acid substitutions – i.e. only 5 amino acids have to be the same as the base polypeptide, less than 50 amino acids, truncation of residues 1-67 – N-terminus and also including 1-10 substitutions, a truncation of up to 21 amino acids at the C-terminus and also including 1-30 substitutions, and combinations thereof). Therefore, the claims read on sequences with very little sequence identity (e.g. 6% - 5mer of 87mer of SEQ ID NO: 4). The scope of these claims include a vast number of sequences because the specification and claims do not require a common core structure for the function of inducing weight loss, improving glucose tolerance, reducing body fat mass, increasing lean body mass, reducing the lipid content of adipocytes, inducing thermogenesis in white adipocytes, increasing cortical thickness of the tibia bone, stimulating bone formation, treating metabolic disorders, treating muscle disorders and injuries, or treating bone disorders. Consequently, there is no teaching that would allow a person of skill in the art to determine a priori that the Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing because there is no common structural attributes that can link together all of the claimed polypeptides.
While the general knowledge and level of skill in the art for making polypeptides and screening polypeptides is high, this knowledge and level of skill does not supplement the omitted description because specific, not general, guidance is needed for the methods of inducing weight loss, improving glucose tolerance, reducing body fat mass, increasing lean body mass, reducing the lipid content of adipocytes, inducing thermogenesis in white adipocytes, increasing cortical thickness of the tibia bone, stimulating bone formation, treating metabolic disorders, treating muscle disorders and injuries, or treating bone disorders with the recited polypeptides, variants, and fragments. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes or characteristics that identify all of the members of the genus or even a substantial portion thereof, and because the genus is vast and highly variant (e.g. thousands of polypeptides), the limited examples in the specification are insufficient to teach the entire genus.
RUCILP2 (SEQ ID NO: 4) was utilized in the present specification and analyzed for adipocyte thermogenesis (in vitro - Figure 9; in vivo mice – Figure 17), reducing lipid content (in vitro; Figure 10), increasing GLP-1 (Figure 14).
Mice fed Rumminococcus torques with Rumtor_00181 (SEQ ID NO: 21) had NO change in body mass (Figure 18), a change in fat mass or lean mass (Figures 19-20, 35), a change in glucose tolerance (Figures 21 and 22), a change in thermogenesis (Figure 23, 37), altered cortical thickness of tibia bone (Figure 24).
See additional data at pages 7-20 (Figure Descriptions) and Examples at pages 54-90.
Only RUCILP2 (SEQ ID NO: 4) and Rumminococcus torques with Rumtor_00181 (SEQ ID NO: 21) were utilized in the examples.
The specification discloses only limited examples that are not representative of the claimed genus; nor do the claims recite sufficient structural features which are common to members of the genus sufficient to demonstrate possession of the genus. Therefore, the teachings in the specification are general teachings relating without guidance as to the individual components of the product. In addition, there are numerous polypeptides that could be employed in the invention with little direction or guidance for one of skill in the art to practice the claimed invention. The expedient statements in the specification do not relate to an adequate disclosure or how to make and use the claimed invention. Consequently, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to adequately describe the vast genus. Thus, Applicant does not appear to be in possession of the claimed genus.
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 54 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claims. For example, a nexus is missing between the preamble and the body of the claim (e.g. desired outcome of the method and “an individual in need thereof”).
Claims 55 and 56 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claims. For example, a nexus is missing between the preamble and the body of the claim (e.g. desired outcome of the method and “a subject in need thereof”). In addition, the Markush group of claim 56 only refers to the preamble and not necessarily “a subject in need thereof”.
Claim 57 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claims. For example, a nexus is missing between the preamble and the body of the claim (e.g. desired outcome of the method and “a subject in need thereof”).
Claim 57 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 57 recites the broad recitation “comprising…SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 19”, and the claim also recites “consisting…SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 19” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 57 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 57 recites the broad recitation “at least 90% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 19”, and the claim also recites “comprising…SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 19” (i.e. 100% identity with any N- or C-terminal additions) or “consisting…SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 19” (i.e. 100% identity and the same length) which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to administering Rumminococcus torques (i.e. naturally occurring bacteria) or Rumminococcus torques peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 4, 5, 19, 20, variants thereof, and fragments thereof (i.e. naturally occurring polypeptides) without significantly more. The claims recite a single administration step of administering Rumminococcus torques (i.e. naturally occurring bacteria) or Rumminococcus torques peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 4, 5, 19, 20, variants thereof, and fragments thereof (i.e. naturally occurring polypeptides) to an individual or subject. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the administration step amounts to “apply it” particularly since there is no correlation between the preamble and the body of the claim. In addition, Rumminococcus torques is a natural part of the gut microbiome of humans (e,g, subject or individual already has Rumminococcus torques and Rumminococcus torques polypeptides). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no other reagents are required by the claims.
See Zheng et al., 2020, Dietary inflammatory potential in relation to the gut microbiome: results from a cross-sectional study, Br J Nutr, 124(9): 931-942; Togo et al., 2018, Description of Mediterraneibacter massiliensis, gen. nov., sp. nov., a new genus isolated from the gut microbiota of an obese patient and reclassification of Ruminococcus faecis, Ruminococcus lactaris, Ruminococcus torques, Ruminococcus gnavus, and Clostridium glycyrrhizinilyticum and Mediterraneibacter faecis comb. Nov., Mediterraneibacter lactaris comb. nov. Mediterraneibacter torques comb. nov., Mediterraneibacter gnavus comb. nov. and Mediterraneibacter glycyrrhizinilyticus comb. nov., Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 111: 2107-2128; and Blacher et al., 2019, Potential roles of gut microbiome and metabolites in modulating ALS in mice, Nature, 572: 474-504.
Future Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER D STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-5538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/AMBER D STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights