DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Application
Claims 5-8 are pending and subject to examination on the merits.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/TR2022/051306 filed 16 November 2022 which claims benefit of foreign priority document Turkiye filed 18 March 2022 is acknowledged. Said document has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 September 2024 has been considered by the examiner. See initialed and signed PTO/SB/08.
Specification
Compliance with Sequence Rules
This application contains sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide sequences set forth 37 C.F.R. § 1.831(b). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.831-1.839.
On p. 4 of the specification (marked-up version), in the last paragraph there are four different primer sequences each having more than 10 nucleotides, and thus each requires a representative sequence in a submitted sequence listing and each requires identification of said sequence with an appropriate sequence identifier (SEQ ID NO:).
* Since no sequence listing has been submitted, Applicants must provide:
(1) a sequence listing containing the requisite four sequences in computer readable form (.xml),
(2) an amendment directing its entry into the specification,
(3) a statement that no new matter has been added,
(4) an amendment to the specification to identify the identified four sequences by SEQ ID NO:, and
(5) an incorporation by reference to a sequence listing statement at the beginning of the specification which identifies the date of creation, sequence file name and size. – See also MPEP 2422.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The species name KOMAGATAEIBACTER SP. GUS 3 should be italicized and not in all capitals (i.e. Komagataeibacter Sp. GUS3).
Claim 5 suffers from numerous grammatical errors in bullet points 2-5. The following is suggested to overcome the objections.
growing the isolate [[is]] in 5 mL HS medium at 30° C for 2 days under static conditions,
incubating the isolate at 30° C for 7 days under static conditions after transferring into 250 mL [[of]] erlenmeyer flasks containing 45 mL of HS medium,
obtaining a cellulose biofilm that is separated from the medium, by washing with 2% NaOH at 80° C. for 45 minutes, and washing with distilled water until the pH reaches 7, and
drying the biofilm at 45° C until it reaches a constant weight.
Claims 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “petris” rather ‘petri dish’ (or petri dishes). It is noted, “petris” is not a conventional term or scientifically utilized term.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or join inventor regards as the invention. This is because the claims attempt to recite a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. Specifically, the claims recite “use of medium……” in claim 1, first bullet point, however, it is unclear what the process steps are supposed to be which results in the use of the medium. It is noted, the recitation of a “use” without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is practiced is deemed indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
It is suggested to combine the first two bullet points to overcome this rejection. Claims 6-8 are included as they do not remedy the deficiency.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or join inventor regards as the invention.
The claim recites in the first bullet point several components of a medium in parenthesis. However, it is unclear whether that which is recited in the parenthesis are claim limitations or merely preferred embodiments. Claims 6-8 are included as they do not remedy the noted deficiency.
For examination purposes, that components in the parenthesis will be deemed preferred embodiments and non-limiting.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or join inventor regards as the invention.
The claim recites in the second bullet point “HS medium”. However, it is unclear whether this medium is the same or different from that of the first bullet point. Claims 6-8 are included as they do not remedy the noted deficiency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "grow the isolate" or “leave the isolate” in the second and third bullet points. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not utilize the term “isolate” anywhere prior to this point. As such, the claim suffers from internal antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "GUS3 isolate (Komagataeibacter sp.)" in reference to claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 5 does not ever recite a “GUS3 isolate”.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name stomacher.
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a commonly used brand of laboratory blender and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
It is suggested to substitute “Stomacher” with blender.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "acetic acid bacteria Komagataeibacter sp. GUS3" in reference to claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “acetic acid bacteria” limitation in the claim because claim 5 does not recite that Komagataeibacter sp. GUS3 is an acetic acid bacteria.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or join inventor regards as the invention.
There is a disconnect between the method steps in claim 7 because while petri dishes seem to be utilize, at no point as a bacterial isolate been streaked on said petri dish so colony formation can occur.
In addition, it is unclear what is meant by “three lines are added in other petris for purification.” Three lines of exactly what is unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the microorganism" and “the sequencing method” in reference to claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 5 does not recite the term microorganism nor any sequencing method.
It is suggested to make the claim clearer and have antecedence to modify the wherein clause to something like:
wherein the 16S rRNA and 16S-23S rRNA from Komagataeibacter sp. GUS3 is sequenced.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE M NOAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-2924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7-4).
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/SUZANNE M NOAKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656 02 July 2026
Prosecution Insights