DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 19, and the species of (i) a second antimicrobial agent or mixture, and (i) and (iia), a phenotypic characteristic response to the first and second antimicrobial agent/mixture; gram positive; and a phenotype characteristic response to an antimicrobial agent/mixture, in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 6, 7, 10-18, and 20-23 have been withdrawn as being in a non-elected group, or requiring non-elected species. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 19 are currently pending and under examination.
This Application claims priority to Swedish patent document No. SE2350781-7, filed 23 June 2023.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites classifying the bacterial cells “at least based on” (i) and (iia). This limitation is indefinite, because recitation of “at least” appears to indicate that additional, unrecited classifying steps are intended to be utilized. However, it is unclear what is intended to be included in, or excluded from, these unrecited steps.
Claims 3 and 8 are likewise rejected for recitation of “at least based on.”
Additionally regarding claim 1, use of the same character to represent different limitations renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if these limitations are intended to be the same, or different, and how to tell. Here, “(i)” is used for both a second antimicrobial agent (line 3), and also for a phenotype characteristic response of the bacterial cells to the first antimicrobial agent or mixture. Likewise, “(iia)” and “(iib)” are indefinite, because it is unclear which “(i)” they are intended to follow from. Further, the overall numbering is unclear, as the first antimicrobial agent is not assigned a number, but the second antimicrobial agent is assigned (i), and the non-elected limitation of a salt or salt mixture is assigned (ii).
Claim 3 is likewise rejected for recitation of “(i)” and “(iia).”
Claim 3 is further indefinite, because it is unclear if the limitation of “if the bacterial cells have a predefined gram classification” is intended to apply only to the non-elected limitation of (iib), and is thus not applicable, or instead, if this limitation is intended to apply to (i) and (iia).
Claim 8 is further indefinite, because it is unclear if “an antimicrobial agent or mixture” (emphasis added) is intended to refer to the first antimicrobial agent/mixture, the second antimicrobial agent/mixture, to both the first and second antimicrobial agents/mixtures, or to a newly presented antimicrobial agent or mixture that is not the first or second antimicrobial agent/mixture.
Claim 9 is indefinite, because it is unclear if “the antimicrobial agent or mixture” is referring to the indefinite term from claim 8, or instead to the first antimicrobial agent/mixture, the second antimicrobial agent/mixture, or to both the first and second antimicrobial agents/mixtures.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the phenotype characteristic response(s)." This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what “response(s)” (plural) is intended to refer to, as only a singular phenotype characteristic response is previously recited in (i) and (iia) claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are included in this rejection, as these claims depend from above rejected claims, and fail to remedy the noted deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rolain et al. (IDS; US 2017/0298408, Published 2017).
With regard to claim 1, Rolain et al. teach a method for classifying bacteria from a biological sample, including urine, by exposing the bacterial cells from the sample to two antibiotic agents, and classifying the bacterial cells based on the phenotype characteristic response of the bacterial cells to the first and second antibiotics (Abs.; Para. 55, 82-83, 86-101).
With regard to claims 3-5 and 8, Rolain et al. teach classifying the bacterial cells based on the phenotype characteristic response of the bacterial cells to the first and second antibiotics, where the bacterial cells have a predefined gram classification or a gram classification is determined, including Staphylococcus or Enterococcus, which are gram positive (Para. 82-84, 86).
With regard to claim 9, Rolain et al. teach that the gram classification (i.e. identification of bacterial species) is based on the phenotype characteristic response of the bacterial cells, including a response to the first antibiotic (Para. 55, 82-84, 86).
With regard to claim 19, Rolain et al. teach that the phenotype characteristic response includes determining growth inhibition, which is growth rate (Para. 66).
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M.H. TICHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00am-7:00pm 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, Sharmila G. Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/JENNIFER M.H. TICHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights