DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-26 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 17 are cancelled.
Claims 10-13, 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 14-16, 23-26 are pending and examined on the merits.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/10/2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 6/10/2025 have been fully considered and are not deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Maintained (Modified) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 8, 14-16, 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by O’Connell et al. (EP 2832853A1, Date Published: 04.02.2015, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein O’Connell} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, Examiner cited) {herein Atlas} is maintained. The rejection has been modified to further define the pH and conductivity of the powder detergent, as taught by O’Connell. See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections.
Previously presented, claims 1, 3-4, 8, 23-25 are drawn to a powder detergent composition comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm, wherein pH and conductivity is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C.
Previously presented, claims 14-16 are drawn to a detergent composition comprising 5-100 g of a powder detergent comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm when 15g of the detergent is dissolved in 15 l of deionized water at 20°C.
With respect to claims 1, 4, O’Connell teaches a powder detergent composition comprising a protease variant with 99.6% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245 appendix A) and a protease variant (reference SEQ ID NO: 3) with 99.7% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245, appendix B). Said compositions contain builder substances, surface-active surfactants, water- miscible organic solvents, enzymes, sequestering agents, electrolytes, pH regulators, polymers with specific effects, such as soil release polymers, dye transfer inhibitors, graying inhibitors, crease-reducing polymeric active ingredients and shape-retaining polymeric active ingredients, and further auxiliary substances, such as optical brighteners, foam regulators, additional peroxy activators, colorants and scents (para 0248). Examiner is interpreting said compositions to include the detergent components taught by O’Connell as the instant application specification has defined said components to include surfactants, hydrotropes, builders, co-builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleaching system or bleach components, polymers, fabric hueing agents, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dispersants, dye transfer inhibitors, fluorescent whitening agents, perfume, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, soil release polymers, anti-redeposition agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, antioxidants, and solubilizers (Instant Application Specification: page 16, lines 7-13). The composition is stored at temperatures between 15C - 50C (para 0029). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated (page 2, para 2). This is primarily because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (Atlas: page 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4) since O’Connell teaches the same protease and pH of the instant application claim 1. O’Connell further teaches the typical dosing ratio of the powder washing agent is 5.5 g/L per washing liquor (para 0245). Additionally, O’Connell teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occurred at a pH of 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH of 8-9. Furthermore, O’Connell teaches a protease detergent test solution of 4.66 g/L at a temperature of 20C to test the cleaning performance on a swatch (page 46, table 7).
With respect to claims 3, 23-25, O’Connell teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occur between a pH of 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9. Examiner is interpreting a pH of 8-9 as not being more than 9, as it encompasses a pH of 9.
With respect to claim 8, O’Connell teaches a protease variant with 99.7% identify to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (appendix B). Said variant has a point mutation of F180Y (appendix B, para 0063, line 31).
With respect to claims 14, 16, O’Connell teaches 5.5g/l to 7g/l of powder detergent composition comprising a protease variant with 99.6% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245 appendix A) and a protease variant (reference SEQ ID NO: 3) with 99.7% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245, appendix B). Said composition contains builder substances, surface-active surfactants, water- miscible organic solvents, enzymes, sequestering agents, electrolytes, pH regulators, polymers with specific effects, such as soil release polymers, dye transfer inhibitors, graying inhibitors, crease-reducing polymeric active ingredients and shape-retaining polymeric active ingredients, and further auxiliary substances, such as optical brighteners, foam regulators, additional peroxy activators, colorants and scents (para 0248). Examiner is interpreting said compositions to include the detergent components taught by O’Connell as the instant application specification has defined said components to include surfactants, hydrotropes, builders, co-builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleaching system or bleach components, polymers, fabric hueing agents, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dispersants, dye transfer inhibitors, fluorescent whitening agents, perfume, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, soil release polymers, anti-redeposition agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, antioxidants, and solubilizers (Instant Application Specification: page 16, lines 7-13). The composition is stored at temperatures between 15C to 50C (para 0029). O’Connell further teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occurs at a pH between 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claimed detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 14) and a conductivity not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 16). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 14) and a conductivity not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 16).
With respect to claim 15, O’Connell further teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occurs at a pH between 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9.
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of O’Connell anticipate claims 1, 3-4, 8, 14-16, 23-25.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that it remains Applicants' position that O'Connell fails to describe a composition with the claimed pH or claims conductivity, expressly or inherently. Applicants maintain that such characteristics are neither expressly nor necessarily present in O'Connell. Applicant contends no conductivity is discussed in O'Connell. Applicant contends O'Connell does not describe a pH range as claimed. Applicant contends with regard to the conductivity characteristics, the Office Action does not sufficiently identify or explain how the cited reference allegedly meets all claim limitations.
This argument is found to be not persuasive in view of the modified rejection set forth. Examiner maintains that O’Connell teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner contends said washing conditions to be that of the detergent composition. As such, Examiner contends the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9. Examiner contends the recitation ‘pH of not more than 9’ (Instant Application: claims 1, 3, 14, 15) encompasses a pH of 8-9, which O’Connell teaches. Examiner contends that O’Connell’s teaching of ‘washing preferably occurs in a pH range between pH 9 and pH 11” still fits within the range of Applicant’s recitation of a pH of not more than 9 (instant application claim 1), especially due to the term ‘preferably.’ Again, Examiner contends that since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of Applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Examiner contends that since O’Connell teaches the same structure of a powder detergent composition at a pH of 9 (para 0245), as recited in the instant application claim 1, , as such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claims 1, 14) and a conductivity of not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claims 4, 16). Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, Examiner cited) which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (Atlas: page 2, para 2). (page 2, para 2).
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Basler et al. (WO 2011072099A2, Date Published: 2011-06-16, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein Basler} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, Examiner cited) {herein Atlas} is maintained. The rejection has been modified to further define the pH and conductivity of the powder detergent, taught by Basler. See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections.
Previously presented claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25 are drawn to a powder detergent composition comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm, wherein pH and conductivity is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25, Basler teaches a cleaning composition in powder form (page 20, lines 18 through page 21 line 24) comprising a protease variant with 99.6% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with a point mutation of S99A (appendix C). Such detergent compositions may comprise at least one adjunct ingredient or carrier, at least one additional enzyme, at least one builder, and/or at least one surfactant and may be formulated or in a form appropriate to their use (page 22, lines 3-6). Basler further teaches the detergent may have a pH between 3-11 (page 79, line 22-23). Basler further teaches laundry detergent may be a detergent having a pH between 3 and 11 (e.g., between pH 4, pH 5, pH 6, pH 7, pH 7.5, pH 8, pH 9, pH 10, pH 10.5, etc.) (Basler: page 79, line 21-24). Examiner is interpreting the pH of 9 to be encompassed in the pH range of 3-11 taught by Basler. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (Atlas: page 2, para 2). (page 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Basler would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity of not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4) since Basler teaches the same protease and pH of claim 1.
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Basler anticipates claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 10 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that it remains Applicants' position that Basler does not describe a powdered detergent composition with the pH or conductivity characteristics, as presently recited in the pending claims. Applicant contends that Basler teaches "[t]he cleaning compositions of the invention are typically formulated such that, during use in aqueous cleaning operations, the wash water will have a pH of from about 5.0 to about 11.5... Liquid product compositions or formulations are typically formulated to have a neat pH from about 3.0 to about 9.0... Granular laundry product compositions are typically formulated to have a pH from about 9 to about 11 ...." (Basler, p. 116; emphasis added). Applicant contends the full pH range of 3-11 is intended to describe both liquid and granular formulations. Applicant contends one of skill in the art, in view of the above from Basler, would not consider a pH in the about 3.0 to about 9.0 range for a powdered detergent composition, as that range was stated to be a range for liquid compositions.
This argument is found to be not persuasive in view of the modified rejection set forth. Examiner contends that, based on Applicant’s own admission, Basler teaches "[t]he cleaning compositions of the invention are typically formulated such that, during use in aqueous cleaning operations, the wash water will have a pH of from about 5.0 to about 11.5,” of which is within the recited limitation of a pH of not more than 9 (instant application claim 1).
Examiner contends that Basler teaches ‘a pH of not more than 9’ as encompassed by claims 1, 3 of the instant application. Examiner acknowledges the teaching of Basler that ‘granular laundry product compositions are typically formulated to have a pH from about 9 to about 11…” (Basler: page 116). However, Examiner contends that Basler does not teach away from the claimed ‘a pH not more than 9,’ as Basler teaches ‘the cleaning composition may be a laundry detergent. The laundry detergent may be a detergent having a pH between 3 and 11 (e.g., between pH 4, pH 5, pH 6, pH 7, pH 7.5, pH 8, pH 9, pH 10, pH 10.5, etc.) cold water detergent (Basler: page 79, line 21-24). As such, Examiner contends the detergent taught by Basler would necessarily have the same pH as the claimed detergent. Examiner contends since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of Applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity of not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4).
Applicant contends that "[p]owder detergent formulations are typically highly alkaline with pH values above 9, and often above 10, such as up to about 10.5."
Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that said teaching by Basler is in reference to a powder detergent without the enzymes recited in the instant application claims. Examiner maintains that based on the teachings, of "[t]he cleaning compositions of the invention are typically formulated such that, during use in aqueous cleaning operations, the wash water will have a pH of from about 5.0 to about 11.5,’ that Basler anticipates the recited ‘a pH of not more than 9.’
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Poulose et al. (CA2829859A1, Date Published: 2003-07-31, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein Poulose} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, Examiner cited) {herein Atlas} is maintained. The rejection has been modified to further define the pH and conductivity of the powder detergent, taught by Poulose. See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections.
Previously presented claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 are drawn to a powder detergent composition comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm, wherein pH and conductivity is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 Poulose teaches powder detergents comprised of a variant protease polypeptide with 99.6% sequence identify to SEQ ID NO: 2 (appendix D, page 17, line 11) that can be formulated into having a pH between 6.5 and 12.0 (page 18, lines 13-14). Said protease variant has a point mutation of Y217L (page 15, line 11). The cleaning compositions may additionally contain additives which are commonly used in cleaning compositions (page 18, lines 25-26). These can be selected from, but not limited to, bleaches, surfactants, builders, enzymes and bleach catalysts (page 18, lines 26-27). Examiner is interpreting said compositions to include the detergent components taught by Poulose as the instant application specification has defined said components to include surfactants, hydrotropes, builders, co-builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleaching system or bleach components, polymers, fabric hueing agents, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dispersants, dye transfer inhibitors, fluorescent whitening agents, perfume, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, soil release polymers, anti-redeposition agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, antioxidants, and solubilizers (Instant Application Specification: page 16, lines 7-13). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (page 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Poulose would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity of not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4) since Poulose teaches the same protease and pH of claim 1.
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Poulose anticipates claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that it remains Applicants' position that Applicant contends that Poulose does not describe a powdered detergent composition with a pH of not more than 9. Applicant contends Poulose does not describe a pH range as claimed.
This argument is found to be not persuasive in view of the modified rejection set forth. Examiner contends that Poulose teaches powder detergents comprised of a variant protease polypeptide with 99.6% sequence identify to SEQ ID NO: 2 (appendix D, page 17, line 11) that can be formulated into having a pH between 6.5 and 12.0 (page 18, lines 13-14). Furthermore, Examiner contends that proteases of the invention can be formulated into known powdered and liquid detergents having pH between 6.5 and 12.0 (page 18, lines 13-14), which is within the recited limitation of a pH below 9 (claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-26 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 17 are cancelled.
Claims 10-13, 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claim 26 is objected to.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 14-16, 23-25 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Appendix A
O’Connell et al with alignment to SEQ ID NO: 1 (S99N)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1358; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 268; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGASGSGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPNAELYAVKVLGASGSGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
Appendix B
O’Connell et al. sequence alignment with SEQ ID NO: 3 (F180Y)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1600; Length 311;
Best Local Similarity 99.7%;
Matches 310; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AVPSTQTPWGIKSIYNDQSITKTTGGSGIKVAVLDTGVYTSHLDLAGSAEQCKDFTQSNP 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AVPSTQTPWGIKSIYNDQSITKTTGGSGIKVAVLDTGVYTSHLDLAGSAEQCKDFTQSNP 60
Qy 61 LVDGSCTDRQGHGTHVAGTVLAHGGSNGQGVYGVAPQAKLWAYKVLGDNGSGYSDDIAAA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LVDGSCTDRQGHGTHVAGTVLAHGGSNGQGVYGVAPQAKLWAYKVLGDNGSGYSDDIAAA 120
Qy 121 IRHVADEASRTGSKVVINMSLGSSAKDSLIASAVDYAYGKGVLIVAAAGNSGSGSNTIGF 180
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:
Db 121 IRHVADEASRTGSKVVINMSLGSSAKDSLIASAVDYAYGKGVLIVAAAGNSGSGSNTIGY 180
Qy 181 PGGLVNAVAVAALENVQQNGTYRVADFSSRGNPATAGDYIIQERDIEVSAPGASVESTWY 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 PGGLVNAVAVAALENVQQNGTYRVADFSSRGNPATAGDYIIQERDIEVSAPGASVESTWY 240
Qy 241 TGGYNTISGTSMATPHVAGLAAKIWSANTSLSHSQLRTELQNRAKVYDIKGGIGAGTGDD 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 TGGYNTISGTSMATPHVAGLAAKIWSANTSLSHSQLRTELQNRAKVYDIKGGIGAGTGDD 300
Qy 301 YASGFGYPRVK 311
|||||||||||
Db 301 YASGFGYPRVK 311
Appendix C
Basler et al. with alignment to SEQ ID NO: 1 (S99A)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1358; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 268; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGASGSGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGASGAGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
Appendix D
Poulose et al with alignment to SEQ ID NO: 2 (L126V)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1388; Length 382;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 274; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPYGVSQIKAPALHSQGYTGSNVKVAVIDSGIDSSHPDLKVAGGASMVPSETNPFQD 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 108 AQSVPYGVSQIKAPALHSQGYTGSNVKVAVIDSGIDSSHPDLKVAGGASMVPSETNPFQD 167
Qy 61 NNSHGTHVAGTVAALNNSIGVLGVAPSASLYAVKVLGADGSGQYSWIINGIEWAIA NNMD 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 168 NNSHGTHVAGTVAALNNSIGVLGVAPSASLYAVKVLGADGSGQYSWIINGIEWAIA NNMD 227
Qy 121 VINMSLGGPSGSAALKAAVDKAVASGVVVVAAAGNEGTSGSSSTVGYPGKYPSVIAVGAV 180
|||||:||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 228 VINMSVGGPSGSAALKAAVDKAVASGVVVVAAAGNEGTSGSSSTVGYPGKYPSVIAVGAV 287
Qy 181 DSSNQRASFSSVGPELDVMAPGVSIQSTLPGNKYGAYNGTSMASPHVAGAAALILSKHPN 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 288 DSSNQRASFSSVGPELDVMAPGVSIQSTLPGNKYGAYNGTSMASPHVAGAAALILSKHPN 347
Qy 241 WTNTQVRSSLENTTTKLGDSFYYGKGLINVQAAAQ 275
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 348 WTNTQVRSSLENTTTKLGDSFYYGKGLINVQAAAQ 382