The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 3-13-2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 7-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-6 are currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7-18-2024 has been considered. Initialed copies are attached hereto.
It should be noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The use of the trademarks has been noted in this application (see page 3 for example). It should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as trademarks.
It should be noted that the cited occurrences of improper use are only exemplary and Applicant should review the entire specification to correct any other improper use of trademarks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to for reciting claim language drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claim 1 objected to for utilizing the abbreviation for the genus “Lactobacillus” without defining it upon its first recitation.
Claim 2 is objected to for containing an obvious typographical error. The term “strain 363” should read “strain 3630”.
Claim 2 objected to for utilizing the abbreviation for the genus “Lactobacillus” without defining it upon its first recitation.
Claim 3 is objected to for containing an obvious typographical error. The term “strain 363” should read “strain 3630”.
Claim 3 objected to for utilizing the abbreviation for the genus “Lactobacillus” without defining it upon its first recitation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over allowed claims 1, 6-8, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 25, 39-35, 39, 43 and 46 of copending Application No. 18/036,259 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets are drawn to the use of compositions comprising Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 to treat viral respiratory diseases.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Biological Deposit Requirement
Claims 1-6 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is apparent that the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 are required in order to practice the invention. Specifically, it is noted that claims 1-3 recite the deposited material and claims 4-6 depend from claims reciting deposited material The deposit of biological organisms is considered by the Examiner to be necessary for the enablement of the current invention (see 37 CRF 1.808(a)). The examiner acknowledges the deposit of organisms under the ATCC accession numbers PTA-126788 and PTA-126787, respectively, in partial compliance with this requirement. However, said deposits are not in full compliance with 37 CFR 1.803-1.809.
If the deposit is made under terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by Applicants or person(s) associated with the patent owner (assignee) who is in a position to make such assurances, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature, stating that the deposit has been made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty and that all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirements. See 37 CFR 1.808.
If a deposit is not made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit, or declaration by Applicants or person(s) associated with the patent owner (assignee) who is in a position to make such assurances, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature, stating that the following criteria have been met:
1) during the pendency of the application, access to the deposit will be afforded to one determined by the Commissioner to be entitled thereto;
2) all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent; and
3) the deposits will be maintained for a term of at least thirty (30) years from the date of the deposit or for the enforceable life of the patent or for a period of at least five (5) years after the most recent request for the furnishing of a sample of the deposited material, whichever is longest; and
4) a viability statement in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.807; and
5) the deposit will be replaced should it become necessary due to inviability, contamination or loss of capability to function in the manner described in the specification.
In addition, the identifying information set forth in 37 CRF 1.809(d) should be added to the specification. See 37 CFR 1.803 – 1.809 for additional explanation of these requirements.
Written Description
Claims 1-6 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.
The instant claims are drawn to methods of treating any and all viral respiratory disease utilizing compositions comprising the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630. Moreover, the rejected claims further require:
the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and/or Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 secrete mersacidin;
the disease is caused by a corona virus or influenza virus (claim 5); or
the disease is caused by alphacoronaviruses, beta coronaviruses, MERS-CoV, SAR-COV, SARS-CoV-2 or the common cold (claim 6).
To fulfill the written description requirements set forth under 35 USC § 112, first paragraph, the specification must describe at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed genus, or alternatively describe a representative member of the claimed genus, which shares a particularly defining feature common to at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed genus, which would enable the skilled artisan to immediately recognize and distinguish its members from others, so as to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that Applicant has possession the claimed invention. To adequately describe the genus of therapies, Applicant must not only adequately describe the viral respiratory disease(s) that the recited compositions are capable of treating but also described the dosages and means of administration required to achieve treatment of a given viral respiratory disease.
While the specification speculates that the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 expressed Lanthipeptide Mersacidin 1 potentially binds ad interferes with the CoViD-19 spike protein interaction with the ACE2 receptor, it is silent with regard to the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 being an effective in vivo therapeutic for any viral respiratory disease.
Consequently, the specification fails to disclose distinguishing and identifying features of a representative number of members of the genus of therapeutics/therapies which the claims are drawn, such as a correlation between the components of the compositions (and the means to administer them) and its recited function (i.e. treating any and all viral respiratory) so that the skilled artisan could immediately envision, or recognize at least a substantial number of members of the claimed genus of therapies. Therefore, since the specification fails to adequately describe at least a substantial number of members of the genus of therapeutic methods to which the claims refer, the written description requirement is not satisfied.
MPEP § 2163.02 states, “[a]n objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, 'does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed' ”. The courts have decided:
The purpose of the “written description” requirement is broader than to merely explain how to “make and use”; the applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed.
See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Federal Circuit, 1991). Furthermore, the written description provision of 35 USC § 112 is severable from its enablement provision; and adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
MPEP 2163.02 further states, “[p]ossession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing the invention was 'ready for patenting' such as by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention” See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by "whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it"). Moreover, because the claims encompass a genus of variant species, an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. However, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; nor has Applicant shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; nor has Applicant described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Moreover, the describing of a biological entity by their functions was addressed in the Centocor decision (CENTOCOR ORTHO BIOTECH, INC. v ABBOTT LABORATORIES (Fed Cir, 2010-1144, 2/23/2011)). In said case the court stated”
To satisfy the written description requirement, "the applicant must 'convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention,' and demonstrate that by disclosure in the specification of the patent." Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Assessing such "possession as shown in the disclosure" requires "an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Ultimately, "the specification must describe an invention understandable to [a person of ordinary skill in the art] and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed." Id. A "mere wish or plan" for obtaining the claimed invention is not adequate written description. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The court further opined that Centocor's suggestion
that our decision in Noelle and the PTO written description guidelines support the view that fully disclosing the human TNF-α protein provides adequate written description for any antibody that binds to human TNF-α. That suggestion is based on an unduly broad characterization of the guidelines and our precedent.
The court concluded that
While our precedent suggests that written description for certain antibody claims can be satisfied by disclosing a well-characterized antigen, that reasoning applies to disclosure of newly characterized antigens where creation of the claimed antibodies is routine. Claiming antibodies with specific properties, e.g., an antibody that binds to human TNF-α with A2 specificity, can result in a claim that does not meet written description even if the human TNF-α protein is disclosed because antibodies with those properties have not been adequately described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (WO 2020/163398) and Olaimat et al. (Science of Food Vol. 4 No. 17, pages 1-6).
Kumar et al. disclose the use of probiotic compositions comprising Lactobacillus reuteri strains to increase an animal’s health (see abstract) and decrease pathogens (see page 7, lines 27-30). Kumar et al. further disclose that said compositions can comprise the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 (see page 8, line 33 to page 9, line 2) and that their compositions can be administered orally, parentally, nasally or mucosally (see page 8, line 12).
Kumar et al. differs from the invention of the rejected claims in that they don’t explicitly disclose the use of compositions comprising the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 to treat viral respiratory diseases.
Olaimat et al. disclose the use of probiotics to treat COViD 19 (see title and abstract). Olaimat et al. further disclose that said probiotic can be Lactobacillus reuteri (see page 3, left hand column).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to utilize the compositions of Kumar et al. to treat COViD 19 in order to take advantage of the antimicrobial characteristics of the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and the Lactobacillus reuteri strain.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as Kumar et al. discloses that the bacteria of their compositions colonize the gastrointestinal tract and Olaimat et al. disclose the beneficial effects of probiotics on the gut microbiota and the role of the Gut-Lung Axis in CoViD 19 (see pages 2-3). Moreover, Kumar et al. disclose efficacy of the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3632 and the Lactobacillus reuteri strain 3630 as a therapeutic against a multitude of different pathogens.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A ZEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 6:30 am - 3pm 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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/ROBERT A ZEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights