Preservation of microorganisms

All actions (12)

Non-Final Office Action after RCELatest

Apr 10, 2025 · §103, §112

Rejection groups (4)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2,4-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160184196) in view of Lei et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0166480) , Austrianova (Bacteria Encapsulation Bac-in-a Box, Encapsulated probiotic Bacteria in Cosmetics), Salmons et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160298077), Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560), Broom (When can Organic Acids and Probiotics be Used Together-2014), 20160298077)) and Bae et al. (KR20130136332).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Apr 10, 2025
Examiner theory
Examiner interprets the first and second component in light of the species elections as comprising a) Lactobacillus rhamnosus microorganism, b) alginate shell, c) capric/caprylic triglycerides non-aqueous component, d) anisic acid organic acid, and e) composition is in cream form. The species to organic acid encompassing anisic acid is rejoined with lactic acid and the species of non aqueous core is rejoined with silicone oils. The Examiner interprets beneficial microorganisms as being probiotics comprising the elected Lactobacillus rhamnosus. The limitation of the first compartment is contained within the second is interpreted as microcapsules in the cream. Baxter et al. teach consumer products having microencapsulated agents which are inclusive of probiotics, see claims 1 and 2. The li
§ 112(a)Written descriptionclaims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-18 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.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Apr 10, 2025
Examiner theory
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. Instant claims 1 and 18 introduce new matter in view of the amendment to the claims. Instant claims 1 and 18 recite that the water-impermeable shell is of 1 µm up to 5000 µm. However, the instant specification at paragraph [0077] recites formulating microorganisms in the form of microparticles which requires surface modifier to be adsorbed on the surface to maintain an effective average particle size of the microcapsules. PNG media_image1
§ 112(b)Indefinitenessclaims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2,4-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-18 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.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Apr 10, 2025
§ 112(d)Otherclaims 4, 9
Claims 4 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Apr 10, 2025

Prior art consulted (2)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
WO2017030560	foreign patent	Lesniak et al.	View ↗
KR20130136332	foreign patent	Bae et al.	View ↗

Objections (1)

otherclaims 18

Procedural framework (6)

MPEP§ 608.01(m)

Case lawIn Re Gershon·See Newell Co. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.·Graham v. John Deere Co.·In Re Dillon·In Re Linter

Final Office Action

Oct 9, 2024 · §103, §112

Rejection groups (2)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615), Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560), Broom (When can Organic Acids and Probiotics be Used Together-2014), Salmons et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160298077) and Bae et al. (KR20130136332).
Final Office Action mailed Oct 9, 2024
§ 112(a)Written descriptionclaims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2, 4-9,12-15, and 17-18 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.
Final Office Action mailed Oct 9, 2024
Examiner theory
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. Instant claims were amended in the claim set filed 12/18/2023 to recite that the core is selected from the group consisting of vegetable oils, mineral oils, silicon oils, capric/caprylic triglyceride, liquid paraffin, hydrophobic or polar media, silicones and hard fats. The instant specification at paragraph [0020] and [0058] discloses in a particular embodiment of the present invention, the non-aqueous composition is selected from the list compris

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Apr 18, 2024 · §103, §112

Rejection groups (4)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615), Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560), Broom (When can Organic Acids and Probiotics be Used Together-2014), Endo et al. (Food Matrices and Cell Conditions Influence Survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG under Heat and During Storage-2014) and Bae et al. (KR20130136332).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Apr 18, 2024
§ 112(a)Written descriptionclaims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-2, 4-9,12-15, and 17-18 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.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Apr 18, 2024
Examiner theory
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. Instant claims 1 and 18 recite an alginate based shell. The instant specification discloses that the shell material can be alginate in alternative to xanthan gum, arabic gum, gellan gum, carrageen, gelatin, cellulose or derivatives thereof; or polymers based on agar, proteins, polyol, gelatine, PVA (polyvinyl alcohol), PLGA (Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), PLA (polylactic acid) and derivatives thereof, PCL, polyisohexylcyanoacrylate, acrylate deriva

Final Office Action

Aug 17, 2023 · §103

Rejection groups (1)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615), Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560), Broom (When can Organic Acids and Probiotics be Used Together-2014), Endo et al. (Food Matrices and Cell Conditions Influence Survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG under Heat and During Storage-2014) and Bae et al. (KR20130136332).
Final Office Action mailed Aug 17, 2023

Prior art consulted (2)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
WO2017030560	foreign patent	Lesniak et al.	View ↗
KR20130136332	foreign patent

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Nov 10, 2022 · §103

Rejection groups (1)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615), Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560), Bae et al. (KR20130136332) and Broom (When can Organic Acids and Probiotics be Used Together-2014) Claim 1 recites a 2-compartment system consisting of: - a first compartment comprising microcapsules comprising a water-insoluble and water- impermeable shell, and microorganisms contained in a non-aqueous composition in a core of the microcapsules; and - a second compartment comprising an aqueous composition having a pH of less than 7.0 and comprising one or more organic acids; wherein the second compartment does not comprise additional preservatives and comprises at least 30% water, and wherein probiotic microorganisms are not harmed by the one or more organic aids when the 2-compartment system is applied to the skin and when the content of both compartments is combined.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Nov 10, 2022
Examiner theory
The water-insoluble and water-impermeable shell are rupturable by low pressure, friction or shear stress. Examiner interprets the first and second component in light of the species elections as comprising a) Lactobacillus rhamnosus microorganism, b) alginate shell, c) capric/caprylic triglycerides non-aqueous component, d) anisic acid organic acid, and e) composition is in cream form. The species to organic acid encompassing anisic acid is rejoined with lactic acid and levulinic acid. Al-Furaih teaches microencapsulated probiotic bacteria cores which are protected from degradation comprising a matrix shell of gelled alginate, see abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0021], [0026] and entire document. The microencapsulated bacteria can comprise Lactobacillus rhamnosus, see paragraph [0027]. Th

Final Office Action

Dec 22, 2021 · §103

Rejection groups (1)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615) and Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560) and Bae et al. (KR20130136332).
Final Office Action mailed Dec 22, 2021

Prior art consulted (2)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
WO2017030560	foreign patent	Lesniak et al.	View ↗
KR20130136332	foreign patent	Bae et al.	View ↗

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Aug 25, 2021 · §103

Rejection groups (1)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-9, 12-15, 17-18
Claims 1-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615) and Lesniak et al. (WO2017030560) and Bae et al. (KR20130136332).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Aug 25, 2021

Prior art consulted (2)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
WO2017030560	foreign patent	Lesniak et al.	View ↗
KR20130136332	foreign patent	Bae et al.	View ↗

Advisory Action

Jun 14, 2021

Procedural framework (4)

Case lawIn Re Dillon·In Re Kahn·In Re Keller·In Re Linter

Final Office Action

Mar 30, 2021 · §103

Rejection groups (1)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 17-18
claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615) and Konate et al.
Final Office Action mailed Mar 30, 2021
Examiner theory
WO2016/162326-Eng. document attached).

Prior art consulted (1)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
WO2016162326	foreign patent	—	View ↗

Non-Final Office Action

Sep 17, 2020 · §103, §112

Rejection groups (5)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 16
claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615) and Konate et al.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep 17, 2020
Examiner theory
WO2016/162326-Eng. document attached).
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-9, 12-16
Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Kowalski et al. (United States Patent Publication 2010/0055083) and Konate et al.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep 17, 2020
Examiner theory
WO2016/162326-Eng. document attached).
§ 112(b)Indefiniteness

Non-Final Office Action

Mar 20, 2020 · §103, §112

Rejection groups (2)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-9, 12-15
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Furaih (United States patent Publication 2017/0216374) in view of Brahms et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0064615) and Konate et al.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 20, 2020
Examiner theory
WO2016/162326-Eng. document attached).
§ 112(b)Indefinitenessclaims 1-9, 12-15
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 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 a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 20, 2020
Examiner theory
The term substantially free” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term substantially free is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Here, the metes and bounds of claim 1 is indefinite as it is unclear how much buffering agent can be present to be considered “substantially” free, and the instant specification does not set forth amounts which meet having a substantially free amount.

Unity of Invention Requirement

Oct 3, 2019

Unity of invention requirement

Traverse status: without traverse

Group Iclaims 1-9, 12-15
a 2-compartment system consisting of a first compartment comprising microcapsules comprising a water insoluble and water impermeable shell and microorganisms contained in a non-aqueous composition in a core of the microcapsules and a second compartment comprising an aqueous composition having a pH of less than 7.0 and comprising one or more organic acid; wherein the second compartment is substantially free of buffering agent
Group IIclaims 10
a method for the preservation of viable microorganisms comprising: - providing a 2-compartment system; - including the viable microorganisms in a first compartment comprising microcapsules comprising a water-insoluble and water-impermeable shell, and microorganisms contained in a non-aqueous composition in the core of the microcapsules; - including one or more organic acids in an aqueous composition in a second compartment of the 2-compartment system in an amount sufficient to obtain a pH of less than 7.0; wherein the second compartment is substantially free of buffering agents

Procedural framework (3)

MPEP§ 804.01

The latest Office Action

Claim status

Open 16/311,449 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (12)

Non-Final Office Action after RCELatest

Rejection groups (4)

Prior art consulted (2)

Objections (1)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (2)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (4)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (1)

Prior art consulted (2)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (1)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (1)

Prior art consulted (2)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (1)

Prior art consulted (2)

Advisory Action

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (1)

Prior art consulted (1)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (5)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (2)

Unity of Invention Requirement

Unity of invention requirement

Prior art consulted (2)

Prior art consulted (2)

Prior art consulted (2)

Prior art consulted (1)

Prior art consulted (1)