Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 August 2025 has been entered.
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11 August 2025.
CLAIMS UNDER EXAMINATION
Claims 1-3, 8-12, 15, 17 and 19-24 are pending and have been examined on their merits.
PRIORITY
A certified translation of FR11/02556, filed 19 August 2011, has not been provided. The claim recites a bioreactor with an oxygen transfer capacity which is two and a half times smaller than is needed for an analogous process. The specification does not provide support for this limitation. The earliest support for this limitation is the claims filed on 31 August 31 2023, after the final office action mailed on 31 March 2023.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn due to claim amendment.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
The remarks made by the Applicant in the response filed on August 2025 are acknowledged. New grounds of rejection have been necessitated by claim amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 8-12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C.§ 112, first paragraph, as containing 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.
Claim 1 requires a strain which is “a strain of” Trichoderma reesei CL847.
It is apparent that the claimed strain of strain Trichoderma reesei CL847 is required to practice the claimed invention. As such the biological material must be readily available or obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification, or otherwise readily available to the public. If it is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, may be satisfied by a deposit of the claimed strain of strain Trichoderma reesei CL847. Budapest Treaty deposits must provide assurances that:
(1) Access to deposited material will be available, during pendency of a patent application making reference to it, to anyone determined by the Director to be entitled to access under 37 CFR 1.14 and 35 USC 122 (see In re Lundak, 227 USPQ 90, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing 35 USC 114)); and
(2) Subject to paragraph (b) of 37 CFR 1.808, all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent.
If the deposit is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicants, or by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, or by someone in a position to corroborate the facts of the deposit, that the instant invention will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-12, 15, 17 and 19-24 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 claims contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “whereby equivalent cellulase productivity is obtained using a bioreactor with an oxygen transfer capacity which is at least two and a half times smaller than is needed for an analogous process”. The specification discloses the following (see page 5, lines 19-21):
the process of the present invention can be used to obtain an analogous cellulase productivity using a bioreactor with an oxygen transfer capacity which is two and a half times smaller, i.e. a KLa of 100 h−1 instead of 250 h−1.
The specification provides support for a bioreactor with an oxygen transfer capacity which is two and a half times smaller. It does not provide support for “at least” two and a half times smaller. This is new matter.
An amendment to the claims or the addition of a new claim must be supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. All dependent claims are included in this rejection.
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, 8-12, 15, 17 and 19-24 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 has been amended to recite wherein the filamentous fungus strain is “a strain of” Trichoderma reesei CL847. T. reesei CL847 is a known strain of T reesei (see Herpoel-Gimbert et al. Comparative secretome analyses of two Trichoderma reesei RUT-C30 and CL847 hypersecretory strains. Biotechnol Biofuels 1 (18) 2008).
The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because claim 1 requires “a strain of” the claimed CL847 strain. It is unclear if the Applicant is claiming the T reesei CL847 strain. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are included in this rejection.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein a change in kLa with time is achieved substantially as represented in Fig. 5”. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are unclear. See MPEP2173.05(s). Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are included in this rejection.
Claims 1 and 19 recite an “analogous” process. Analogous is defined as “similar to something else” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). The term “analogous” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not explicitly 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. The meets and bounds of the “analogous” process are unclear. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are included in this rejection.
Claims 1 and 19 recite an analogous process in which the water- soluble carbonaceous growth substrate is “added in excess”. Excess is defined as “an amount that is more than acceptable, expected or reasonable” (Cambridge Dictionary). The term “excess” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not explicitly 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. The meets and bounds of “excess” are unclear. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are included in this rejection.
Claim 10 recites “the carbonaceous growth substrate for biomass growth in step a”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for a carbonaceous growth substrate for biomass growth in step a. It is unclear if the claim is referring to the carbonaceous growth substrate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the reactor”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the reactor”. It is unclear if the clam is referring to the stirred, aerated bioreactor recited in the base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20-21 recite “the pH is 4.8”. There is a lack of antecedent bass for a pH in the base claim. It is unclear what pH the claim is referring to. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, 17 and 19-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103a as being obvious over Ben Chaabane et al. (Cellulase production method based on the regulation of the dissolved oxygen pressure oscillation in the culture medium. US20110236954A1).
Ben Chaabane et al. teach a method of producing cellulolytic enzymes (Abstract). The art teaches a stirred and aerated bioreactor (Abstract). The art teaches a stirred and aerated bioreactor (Abstract). The art teach a growth stage and a production stage (Abstract). The art teaches Example 4 is performed according to the invention.
Regarding Example 4: The art teaches the conditions applied in Example 4 “are more interesting because they allow to have a higher productivity and yield” ([0076]). Ben Chaabane teaches enzyme production is carried out “under the same conditions as Example 3, but the supply rate is doubled”. Example 3 states the enzyme method is performed under the same conditions as recited in Example 1. The supply rate in Example 4 is doubled to 4 ml/h. It is of note the art teaches “2 mL/h corresponding to a supply rate of 35 to 45 mg per g of cells and per hour” ([0050]). Therefore a supply rate of 4ml/h is interpreted to correspond to a supply rate of 70 to 90 mg per g of cells and per hour. Example 3 discloses a Kla value above 70 h−1 ([0063]).
The following is disclosed in the Examples incorporated by Example 4:
Example 1 discloses the following ([0046]): A stirred fermenter ([0046]). CL847 Trichoderma reesei is added to the fermenter ([0047]).The experiment is carried out in the bioreactor comprises two stages ([0048]).
The art teaches a growth stage on glucose carbon-containing substrate (initial concentration 15 g/L) at a temperature of 27° C. and a pH value of 4.8 ([0049]).
Example 1 teaches the second stage is an enzyme production stage ([0050]).
When the initial substrate of the fermenter is depleted, a 250 g/L lactose solution is injected continuously at 2 mL/h corresponding to a supply rate of 35 to 45 mg per g of cells and per hour up to 200 hours.
Example 3 discloses the following ([0063]): Enzyme production is carried out under the same conditions as in Example 1. After depletion of the carbon-containing substrate of the growth stage, the aeration flow rate is maintained at 0.5 vvm and stirring at 800 rpm, which allows, in the case of the fermenter used, to have a Kla value above 70 h−1.
Ben Chaabane also teaches the following:
During the production stage, stirring and aeration in the bioreactor are set at a predetermined value allowing to have an oxygenation capacity for said bioreactor corresponding to a Kla value ranging between 50 and 150 h−1 depending on the biomass initially considered ([0025]). Inoculum can be grown for 2 to 3 days ([0047]) or 30 hours ([0060]).
The following is noted:
Instant claim 1 (step b) recites culturing the filamentous fungus strain of phase (a) in a fed batch growth and production phase “which initially simultaneously produces both biomass and cellulase enzymes, then reaches an equilibrium state (phase b2) wherein substantially enzymes are produced…”. The emphasized phrase is interpreted to describe the functions of the filamentous fungus when cultured using the conditions recited in step b. The Instant Specification teaches the following regarding the flow of carbon source: “By limiting this flow to values in the range 50 to 140 mg of sugar per gram of biomass per hour, when under limitation conditions, the strain simultaneously produces biomass and enzymes and tends towards an equilibrium state where it makes only enzymes” (see page 6, lines 30-33). Therefore the description recited in phase b1 and b2 of claim 1 is the result of the flow rate.
The deficiency of Ben Chaabane is as follows:
The art does not anticipate 24 hours in step (a).
The art does not anticipate a flow of carbon source of 80-90 mg per gram of cellular biomass per hour in step (b).
The art does not anticipate the claimed kLa range.
It would have been obvious to grow T. reesei for 24 hours in the growth stage. One would have been motivated to optimize the amount of time cells are in culture to achieve the desired amount of culture prior to the enzyme production phase. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ben Chaabane teaches T. reesei can be grown for different periods of time. See MPEP 2144.05 (A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
It would have been obvious to provide a flow of carbon source in the range of 80-90 mg per gram of cellular biomass per hour. Ben Chaabane teaches a doubled supply rate corresponding to 70 to 90 mg per g of cells and per hour. In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists See MPEP 2133.03. One would optimize the amount based on the desired level of protein production. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ben Chaabane teaches a supply rate between 70-90 mg per gram of cellular biomass per hour can be performed successfully using the disclosed method.
It would have been obvious to provide a kLa of 40-100 h-1. Ben Chaabane teaches stirring and aeration in the bioreactor are set at a predetermined value allowing to have an oxygenation capacity for said bioreactor corresponding to a Kla value ranging between 50 and 150 h−1 . One would optimize conditions of the bioreactor to obtain the desired oxygen capacity. See MPEP 2133.03. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ben Chaabane teaches a kLa between 50 and 150 can be used in the disclosed method. Because the claimed method steps are rendered obvious, it would be expected to result in the characteristics recited in claim 1. Therefore claim 1 is rendered obvious.
The art teaches glucose (supra). Claim 8 is rejected. The art teaches lactose (supra). Claim 9 is rejected.
Regarding claim 10: The art teaches the carbon substrate is sterilized and then added to the fermenter ([0047]). Changing the order of steps of sterilization is rendered obvious See MPEP2144.04 IV C. Claim 10 is included in this rejection.
The art teaches the fermenter containing the mineral medium is sterilized at 120° C. for 20 minutes, the glucose carbon-containing source is sterilized separately at 120° C. for 20 minutes, then sterilely added in the fermenter so as to have a final concentration of 15 g/L ([0047]). Therefore the substrate is sterilizes separately, and introduced to the bioreactor after it is sterilized. Claim 11 is included in this rejection.
It would have been obvious to sterilize the inducer substrate. Ben Chaabane teaches substrates are sterilized prior to adding them to the fermenter. One would do so to prevent contamination of the bioreactor. Therefore claim 12 is included in this rejection.
The art teaches glucose (not cellulose) in step a. Therefore claim 15 is included in this rejection.
It would have been obvious to provide a kLa between 40 and 99 h-1. Ben Chaabane teaches stirring and aeration in the bioreactor are set at a predetermined value allowing to have an oxygenation capacity for said bioreactor corresponding to a Kla value ranging between 50 and 150 h−1 . One would optimize conditions to the bioreactor to the desired oxygen capacity. In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists See MPEP 2133.03. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ben Chaabane teaches a kLa between 50 and 150 can be used in the disclosed method. Therefore claim 17 is rendered obvious.
Ben Chaabane teaches a pH value of 4.8 (supra). Therefore claim 20 is included in this rejection.
Regarding independent claim 19:
The claim does not require “24 hours” in step (a). The claim requires a strain of Aspergillus, Penicillium or Schizophyllum. Ben Chaabane teaches the fungi can be Aspergillus, Penicillium or Schizophyllum ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to provide a flow of carbon source in the range of 80-90 mg per gram of cellular biomass per hour. Ben Chaabane teaches a doubled supply rate corresponding to 70 to 90 mg per g of cells and per hour. In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists See MPEP 2133.03. One would optimize the amount based on the desired level of protein production. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ben Chaabane teaches a supply rate between 70-90 mg per gram of cellular biomass per hour can be performed successfully using the disclosed method.
It would have been obvious to provide a kLa of 40-100 h-1. Ben Chaabane teaches stirring and aeration in the bioreactor are set at a predetermined value allowing to have an oxygenation capacity for said bioreactor corresponding to a Kla value ranging between 50 and 150 h−1 . One would optimize conditions in the bioreactor to obtain the desired oxygen capacity. See MPEP 2133.03. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ben Chaabane teaches a kLa between 50 and 150 can be used in the disclosed method. Because the claimed method steps are rendered obvious, it would be expected to result in the characteristics recited in claim 1. Therefore claim 19 is rendered obvious.
The art teaches 15 g/L carbon growth substrate (supra). Therefore claims 2-3 are rendered obvious.
Ben Chaabane teaches a pH value of 4.8 (supra). Therefore claim 21 is included in this rejection.
The art teaches the cellulolytic microorganism belongs to the Trichoderma, Aspergillus, Penicillium and Schizophyllum genera ([0041]). Therefore claims 22-24 are included in this rejection.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, 17 and 19-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103a as being obvious over Warzywoda et al. (previously cited; Process for the production of cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic enzymes using distillation residues from the ethanolic fermentation of enzymatic hydrolyzates of (ligno)cellulosic materials. US2006/0177917) in view of Mukhopadhyay et al. (previously cited; Effect Of Fermentation Variables On Cellulase Production By Trichoderma sp. Biotechnology Letters volume 1, pages 205–210; 1979) as evidenced by Ben Chaabane et al. (supra; US20110236954A1).
Warzywoda et al. teach a method of producing cellulolytic enzymes (Abstract). The enzyme is cellulase ([0030]). The art teaches “the best performing industrial strains are Trichoderma reesei, modified to improve the cellulolytic and/or hemicellulolytic enzymes by mutation-selection processes, such as the IFP CL847 strain” ([0032]).
The art teaches it is necessary to add a source of carbon which can be rapidly assimilated to allow the Trichoderma reesei to grow, and an inducer substrate which allows expression of cellulases and secretion into the culture medium to obtain “good enzyme productivity” ([0016]). Lactose acts as a carbon source and an inducer ([0016]). As evidenced by the Applicant in the arguments filed on 15 December 2022, lactose is water soluble.
Regarding Example 4:
Warzywoda teaches Example 4 illustrates the invention while Examples 1 to 3 are examples. Example 4 discloses biomass is batch produced and enzyme is fed batch produced. Therefore the method comprises a batch phase for growth (i.e. the biomass) and a production phase to obtain enzymes. Example 4 states “fermentation was carried out under the conditions described in Example 2”. Example 2 states growth is conducted for 27 hours ([0044]). Example 2 states enzyme production was carried out under the same conditions as in Example 1.
Example 1 teaches a stirred fermenter ([0036]).
CL847 Trichoderma reesei strain is added to the fermenter ([0037]).
Example 1 teaches after 46 hours growth, the initial substrate from the fermenter was exhausted and the 250 g/l lactose solution was continuously injected at a flow rate of 4.5 ml/h to a time period of 142 hours ([0038]). The term “continuous” is defined as “without a pause or interruption” (Cambridge Dictionary). Continuous injection is interpreted to mean the carbon source is added throughout the second phase without interruption. As evidenced by Ben Chaabane et al., continuous injection of a
250 g/L lactose solution at 2 mL/h corresponds to a supply rate of 35 to 45 mg per g of cells ([0050]). Therefore a rate of 4.5 ml/h is interpreted to correspond to a supply rate of 78.75 to 90 mg per g of cells (multiply 4.5 ml/h by 35, divide by 2; multiply 4.5 ml/h by 40, divide by 2). Therefore Warzywoda teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity.
The following is noted:
Instant claim 1 (step b) recites culturing the filamentous fungus strain of phase (a) in a fed batch growth and production phase “which initially simultaneously produces both biomass and cellulase enzymes, then reaches an equilibrium state (phase b2) wherein substantially enzymes are produced…”. The emphasized phrase is interpreted to describe the functions of the filamentous fungus when cultured using the conditions recited in step b. The Instant Specification teaches the following regarding the flow of carbon source: “By limiting this flow to values in the range 50 to 140 mg of sugar per gram of biomass per hour, when under limitation conditions, the strain simultaneously produces biomass and enzymes and tends towards an equilibrium state where it makes only enzymes” (see page 6, lines 30-33). Therefore the description recited in phase b1 and b2 of claim 1 is the result of the flow rate.
The deficiencies of Warzywoda are:
Warzywoda does not explicitly teach 24 hours as recited in claim 1.
Warzywoda does not explicitly teach a bioreactor that has a volumetric oxygen transfer coefficient, kLa, in the range of 40 to 100 h-1.
Warzywoda does not teach a change in kLa in time is achieved substantially as represented in Fig. 5.
Mukhopadhyay et al. study the effect of cultivation conditions on enzyme productivity in Trichoderma. Table 1 disclose cell mass and cellulase productivity as a function of
agitation and kLa. The art examines these parameters at kLa between 80 and 360. Examiner notes a kLa of 80 reads on the range recited in claim 1. Examiner notes higher agitation speed produces higher kLa. Relative to kLa values of 360, 295, 228 and 155, kLa of 80 produced the highest enzyme productivity.
While Warzywoda teaches a first growth phase of 27 hours, it would have been obvious to perform step a) for 24 hours. Because Warzywoda teaches biomass is produced in this phase, one would optimize the growth phase to obtain the desired amount of biomass growth. It would have been obvious to use a bioreactor a kLa of 80 h-1 because Warzywoda et al. teach a method of growing filamentous fungi in a stirred bioreactor (hence, with agitation), and Mukhopadhyay teaches that a kLa of 80 h-1 can be used to produce a filamentous fungi in a bioreactor using agitation. Thus, one would use said kLa value because it is known in the art, and would yield predictable success when growing a filamentous fungi in a bioreactor using agitation. As set forth above, Mukhopadhyay discloses higher enzyme productivity can be achieved at kLa of 80 h-1. Therefore one of ordinary skill would use this the claimed kLa to optimize the productivity of the cellulase produced in the claimed method. See MPEP 2144.05
Because Warzywoda teaches a method of producing enzymes using the claimed filamentous fungi and the claimed conditions are rendered obvious, it would be expected to produce cellulase enzymes and simultaneously produce biomass as claimed with a change in kLa with time substantially as represented in Figure 5.
Therefore claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Warzywoda teaches a source of carbon may be glucose, lactose of xylose ([0027]).
Therefore claim 8 is rejected.
Warzywoda teaches hydrolyzed cellulose material may be used as an inducer ([0017]), and teaches lactose is suitable for use as an inducer. Therefore claim 9 is rejected.
Warzywoda teaches the carbon-containing substrate selected to produce the biomass is introduced into the fermenter before sterilization or it is sterilized separately and introduced into the fermenter after sterilizing the latter; the inducing source does not need to be added in this phase ([0033]). Therefore the art teaches the substrate for biomass growth can be introduced before sterilization, or sterilized separately and introduced after sterilization. Therefore claims 10-11 are included in this rejection.
It would be obvious to sterilize the inducer carbonaceous substrate since Warzywoda teaches components added to the fermenter are sterilized either before they are added, or once in the fermenter. The skilled artisan would do so to eliminate contamination.
Therefore claim 12 is rendered obvious.
As recited supra, the art discloses the use of Trichoderma reesei. Therefore claim 13 is included in this rejection.
The art teaches the use of T. reesei “modified by mutation-selection processes” ([0032]). Therefore claim 14 is rejected.
The “carbonaceous growth substrate” recited in claim 15 is interpreted to refer to the “at last one carbonaceous growth substrate” recited in step (a) of claim 1. It would be obvious to use a substrate that is not cellulose since Warzywoda teaches cellulose may be replaced with lactose, glucose and xylose ([0016]). It would have been obvious to substitute a lactose, glucose and xylose for cellulose in the disclosed method, as KSR B teaches that it is rational to substitute one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore claim 15 is included in this rejection.
Claim 17 is rendered obvious on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Warzywoda teaches the pH of the material to be hydrolyzed is adjusted to 4.8 ([0030] [0050]). Therefore claim 20 is included in this rejection.
Regarding independent claim 19: The claim does not require “24 hours” in step (a). The claim requires a strain of Aspergillus, Penicillium or Schizophyllum. Warzywoda teaches the fungi can be Aspergillus, Penicillium or Schizophyllum ([0032]).
While Warzywoda teaches a first growth phase of 27 hours, it would have been obvious to perform step a) for 24 hours. Because Warzywoda teaches biomass is produced in this phase, one would optimize the growth phase to obtain the desired amount of biomass growth. It would have been obvious to use a bioreactor a kLa of 80 h-1 because Warzywoda et al. teach a method of growing filamentous fungi in a stirred bioreactor (hence, with agitation), and Mukhopadhyay teaches that a kLa of 80 h-1 can be used to produce a filamentous fungi in a bioreactor using agitation. Thus, one would use said kLa value because it is known in the art, and would yield predictable success when growing a filamentous fungi in a bioreactor using agitation. As set forth above, Mukhopadhyay discloses higher enzyme productivity can be achieved at kLa of 80 h-1. Therefore one of ordinary skill would use this the claimed kLa to optimize the productivity of the cellulase produced in the claimed method. See MPEP 2144.05
Because Warzywoda teaches a method of producing enzymes using the claimed filamentous fungi and the claimed conditions are rendered obvious, it would be expected to produce cellulase enzymes and simultaneously produce biomass as claimed. Therefore claim 19 is rendered obvious.
As recited above, Warzywoda teaches 20-35 g/L carbon substrate may be used in the first phase. In Example 4 of the invention, Warzywoda teaches a biomass can be batch produced with 20 g/l xylose (carbon substrate). Therefore claim 2 is included in this rejection.
While the range disclosed by Warzywoda does not overlap with that recited in claim 3, it is interpreted to be sufficiently close. As recited above, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Further, one would optimize the concentration of the substrate based on the desired biomass production in step (a). Therefore claim 3 is included in this rejection.
Warzywoda teaches the pH of the material to be hydrolyzed is adjusted to 4.8 ([0030] [0050]). Therefore claim 21 is included in this rejection.
Warzywoda teaches the fungi can be Aspergillus ([0032]). Therefore claim 22 is included in this rejection.
Warzywoda teaches the fungi can be Penicillium ([0032]). Therefore claim 23 is included in this rejection.
Warzywoda teaches the fungi can be Schizophyllum ([0032]). Therefore claim 24 is included in this rejection.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-7439. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached on (571) 272-0614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 270-8439.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATALIE M MOSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653