DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed August 13, 2026 has been received and entered. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code, not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Any rejection set forth in a previous Office action that is not specifically set forth below is withdrawn.
3. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. In the reply filed on February 20, 2026, applicant elected Lactiplantibacillus plantarum for the species without traverse.
5. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are examined on the merits in regards to the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (CN 110734869 A – English translation) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference does not teach the claims as amended because the reference does not specifically teach induction of autophagy in the intestine including the intestinal epithelial cells and epithelial stem cells. However, applicant’s specification defines a subject in need of induction of autophagy in the intestine as healthy subject and any subject for whom it is “desirable to maintain a healthy intestinal tract” (paragraph 42). This is considered to read on any subject as maintaining intestinal health would clearly be desirable in all potential subjects. Therefore, the reference is still considered to properly anticipate the claimed invention because it is administering the same composition as claimed, i.e. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, to the same subject population as claimed. As discussed in MPEP section 2112.02, “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process…”. Since the prior art process contains the same active steps as required by the claims, the induction of autophagy in the intestine of the subject would inherently occur if applicant’s invention functions as claimed.
7. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toshimitsu (Nutrients (2020 – published online January 2020), vol. 12, no. 374, 14 pages) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference does not teach the claims as amended because the reference does not specifically teach induction of autophagy in the intestine including the intestinal epithelial cells and epithelial stem cells. However, applicant’s specification defines a subject in need of induction of autophagy in the intestine as healthy subject and any subject for whom it is “desirable to maintain a healthy intestinal tract” (paragraph 42). This is considered to read on any subject as maintaining intestinal health would clearly be desirable in all potential subjects. Therefore, the reference is still considered to properly anticipate the claimed invention because it is administering the same composition as claimed, i.e. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, to the same subject population as claimed. As discussed in MPEP section 2112.02, “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process…”. Since the prior art process contains the same active steps as required by the claims, the induction of autophagy in the intestine of the subject would inherently occur if applicant’s invention functions as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 110734869 A – English translation) in view of Toshimitsu (Nutrients (2020 – published online January 2020), vol. 12, no. 374, 14 pages) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the 103 for the same reasons as set forth for the 102 rejections based on these references. Thus, these arguments are not considered persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
9. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Susan Hoffman whose telephone number is (571)272-0963. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/SUSAN HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
