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 .
Support for the amendments is within the instant application specification.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 12/23/2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 8/29/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1-2,4-13 and 15-23 are pending.
Claims 3, 14, 24-33 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2,4-13 and 15-23 are rejected.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/23/2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 8/29/2025 have been fully considered and are 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.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/8/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Application No. 17420801 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 4-7, 12-13, 15-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 12 to recite ‘or an enzyme mixture,’ claims 4, 5, 12, 15, 18 to correct claim dependency.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-13, 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2011, CN102433015A, Date Published: 2012-5-2, machine translation using espacenet, cited on IDS filed 1/20/2022) {herein Chen} in view of Rahman et al (Published online: 21 November 2016, J Appl Phycol, cited on PTO-892 dated 8/29/2025) {herein Rahman} as evidenced by the Instant Application, Juarez et al (2017, Microalgae-Based Biofuels and Biproducts, doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101023-5.00008-X, cited on PTO-892 filed 2/28/2024) {herein Juarez}.
As amended, claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-11 are drawn to a process for purifying phycocyanins from a solution comprising phycocyanin(s) and glycogen, the phycocyanins being produced by microorganisms selected from the species of the genera Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria, wherein the process comprises the steps of: (i) enzymatically degrading the glycogen with an enzyme or an enzyme mixture suitable for degrading glycogen at a pH below 6 and a reaction temperature below 40°C, the enzymes having a al-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity; and (ii) separating phycocyanins from the glycogen degradation products; wherein the ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins is 20% or below.
As amended, claims 12-13, 15-23 are drawn to a process for producing a phycocyanin of microbial origin which comprises the steps of: (a) cultivation of phycocyanin-producing microorganisms selected from the species of the genera Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria under cultivation conditions to produce a fermentation must comprising more than 30 g/L dry matter and at least 4% phycocyanin on a dry matter basis, (b) cell lysis to release the phycocyanin produced and glycogen to obtain a crude suspension, (c) separation of the crude suspension to recover a crude solution comprising phycocyanin and glycogen, and (d) optionally, isolation of phycocyanin from the crude solution, and (e) optionally, purification of isolated phycocyanin, wherein an additional step of enzymatic lysis of the glycogen is carried out with an enzyme or an enzyme mixture suitable for degrading glycogen at a pH below 6 and a reaction temperature below 40°C, wherein the enzyme or the enzyme mixture has al-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity, the enzymatic lysis being carried out on the crude suspension obtained in step (b) and/or on the crude solution obtained in step (c); wherein the ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins is 20% or below.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-11, Chen teaches a process of extracting phycocyanin from a solution containing crude phycocyanin after homogenization of cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8) via enzymatic digestion pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3), wherein the constant temperature ranges from 30C to 50C (page 3, para 6). Evidentiary evidence of the instant application recites pectinase has alpha 1-4 galactosiduronic activity and alpha 1-4 glucosidase (or alpha-glucosidase) activity (specification: page 5, lines 21-22). As such, Examiner is interpreting pectinase as an enzyme with alpha 1-4 glucosidase activity, as recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Furthermore, Examiner is interpreting the process of homogenizing cyanobacteria to result in cell lysis. Examiner is interpreting the cyanobacteria as a biomass as said mass is comprised of biological materials. The solution is homogenized after enzymatic digestion and centrifuged to remove precipitate (page 3, paragraph 8). Ammonium sulfate crystals are added to the supernatant to precipitated the crude phycocyanin (page 3, paragraph 8). Precipitation occurs in acidity (pH = 4.2) (page 1, paragraph 3). Examiner is interpreting said step to encompass the enzymatic digestion step of the instant application claim 1 step (i) since the cellular materials are being further prepared for purification/separation as recited in step (ii) of the instant application claim 1. Chen further teaches, the solution was centrifuged and the precipitant was filtered by centrifugation (page 6, paragraph 10). The precipitate obtained may be purified (page 3, paragraph 9). Chen further teaches phycocyanin is phycocyanin, which is synonymous with cyanobacteria pigment, spirulina blue pigment, and spirulina protein pigment. Its main components are phycocyanin, phycocyanin, and polysaccharide (page 1, paragraph 3). Evidentiary evidence of Juarez recites glycogen is a component of cyanobacterial cell wall (page 183, paragraph 2). As such, Examiner is interpreting since the glycogen is a component of the cell wall, separation of said cell wall from phycocyanin would necessarily result in the separation of glycogen from phycocyanin.
With respect to claims 12, 21, Chen teaches a process of extracting phycocyanin from a solution containing crude phycocyanin from cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8) via enzymatic digestion utilizing pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3). Examiner is interpreting the recitations (d) optionally, isolation of phycocyanin from the crude solution, and (e) optionally, purification of isolated phycocyanin, wherein an additional step of enzymatic lysis of the glycogen is carried out with an enzyme or an enzyme mixture suitable for degrading glycogen at a pH below 6 and a reaction temperature below 40°C, wherein the enzyme or an enzyme mixture has alpha 1-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity, the enzymatic lysis being carried out on the crude suspension obtained in step (b) and/or on the crude solution obtained in step (c) of claim 12 as being optional. As such, they are not a requirement of the claim and said limitations are rendered moot.
With respect to claims 13, 15-20, 22, the limitations of said claims are rendered moot as the enzymatic process is ‘optional’ according to claim 12 with the recitation ‘(d) optionally, isolation of phycocyanin from the crude solution, and: (e) optionally, purification of isolated phycocyanin, wherein an additional step of enzymatic lysis of the glycogen is carried out with an enzyme suitable for degrading glycogen at a pH below 6 and a reaction temperature below 40°C, wherein the enzyme has al-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity, the enzymatic lysis being carried out on the crude suspension obtained in step (b) and/or on the crude solution obtained in step (c).’ As such, said claims are not searchable.
However, Chen does not teach a process of claim 1, wherein the phycocyanins being produced by microorganisms selected from the species of the genera Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria… wherein the ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins is 20% or below (claim 1). The process of claim 5, wherein the enzyme is an enzyme mixture which comprises at least one enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity (claim 5). The process of claim 6, wherein the enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity is a pullulanase (claim 6). The process of claim 7, wherein the enzyme mixture comprises a pectinase and a pullulanase (claim 7). The process of claim 9, wherein the enzyme is a glucoamylase (claim 9). The process of claim 12 of cultivation of phycocyanin-producing microorganisms selected from the species of the genera Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria as defined in claim 1 (claim 12). The process of claim 23, wherein the phycocyanin is a phycocyanin of microbial origin, produced by a microorganism chosen from the species Galdieria sulphuraria (claim 23).
With respect to claims 1, 12, 23, Rahman teaches a process wherein phycocyanin is purified from Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae (pages 1234, column 1, para 2 and column 2, para 2). The recitation of ‘the cultivation of Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria as defined in claim 1’ within claim 12 is indefinite as there is no recitation of the cultivation of Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria in claim 1 of the instant application. However, Rahman teaches Cyanidioschyzon was grown for phycocyanin production in Allen medium (page 1234, column 2, para 1).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, since the art teaches the structure of a process for purifying phycocyanins from a solution comprising phycocyanin(s) and glycogen, it is the Examiners interpretation that the process for purifying phycocyanin utilizing enzymatic digestion that degrade glycogen would necessarily have a ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins at 20% or below.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Chen et al of a process of extracting phycocyanin from a solution containing crude phycocyanin from cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8) via enzymatic digestion pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3), which have alpha 1-4 glucosidase, wherein the temperature during experimentation ranges from 30C to 50C (page 3, para 6) or combine the teachings of Rahman et al because Rahman teaches a process wherein phycocyanin is purified from Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae (pages 1234, column 1, para 2 and column 2, para 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Chen et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Rahman because Rahman provides the motivation for Chen to utilize Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae for the purification of phycocyanins because Galdieria sulphuraria is able to grow heterotrophically in the dark and autotrophically in the light which makes it easier to cultivate for the purification of phycocyanins (page 1243, column 1, para 2). Chen would be motivated to utilize Cyanidioschyzon merolae for the purification of phycocyanins as said microbes lack a cell wall, thereby allowing for an extractant with less chlorophyl and protein contaminants (page 1234, column 1, para 2). One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of phycocyanins as natural edible pigment would have a reasonable expectation of success to use Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae for the purification of phycocyanins as Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae grow in low pH, which minimizes the risk of microbial contamination thereby limiting product costs (Rahman: abstract and page 1234, column 1, para 2).
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for purifying phycocyanins from Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae via enzymatic degradation because Rahman provides the teachings of using Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae as the microbial source of phycocyanins (abstract). Whereas Chen teaches the method of utilizing pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3), which have alpha 1-4 glucosidase, for the purification of phycocyanins from cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant contends that
starting from Chen, which relates to spirulina (cyanobacteria, i.e., prokaryote), a skilled person in the art would have found no motivation to work on Eukaryotes (Cyanidiales) nor to use enzymes as defined in claim 1 to purify phycocyanin from glycogen.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends Rahman provides the motivation for Chen to utilize Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae for the purification of phycocyanins because Galdieria sulphuraria is able to grow heterotrophically in the dark and autotrophically in the light which makes it easier to cultivate for the purification of phycocyanins (page 1243, column 1, para 2). Examiner contends that Chen would be motivated to utilize Cyanidioschyzon merolae for the purification of phycocyanins as said microbes lack a cell wall, thereby allowing for an extractant with less chlorophyl and protein contaminants (page 1234, column 1, para 2).
Applicant contends that in Chen, the enzymes are only used to break the wall of the cell of cyanobacteria. There is no information about the ability of the enzyme to degrade glycogen while preserving the properties of the phycocyanin extracted from the species of the genera Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that there is no teaching in Chen of enzymes that only break down the cell wall of cyanobacteria. Examiner contends that Chen does not state said teaching anywhere within the article. Examiner contends that the ability of pectinase to break down glycogen is an inherent characteristic and well-known in the art. Examiner contends that Applicant does not recite ‘preserving the properties of the phycocyanin extracted from the species of the genera Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria’ within the instant application claims.
Applicant contends Chen uses sulfate ammonium to precipitate the phycocyanin which has been identified as very difficult to apply on an industrial scale because it requires a great deal of ammonium sulfate, which poses significant problems in reprocessing the ammonium sulfate and the supernatant. The presently claimed process avoids this problem.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that the precipitation of phycocyanin by anything, let alone sulfate ammonium is not claimed within the instant application. As such, the utilization of sulfate ammonium by Chen is not of relevance to the instant application. Examiner contends that Applicant recites the enzymatic digestion and separation of phycocyanins from the glycogen degradation products produced by Cyanidioschyzon and Galdieria. Examiner contends that those are the limitations of the claims. There is no recitation of any precipitation processes.
Applicant contends that Rahman does not mention the presence of glycogen in phycocyanin extract, nor the importance to remove it to improve the purity of said extract. Thus, nothing in Rahman suggests or even mentions the problem of purity of C. merolae phycocyanin due to the presence of glycogen.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that nor does Applicant recite the importance of removing glycogen from the extract to improve phycocyanin. Applicant is reminded that the instant application claims recite ‘(ii) separating phycocyanins from the glycogen degradation products; wherein the ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins is 20% or below’ (instant application claim 1) and ‘(d) optionally, isolation of phycocyanin from the crude solution, and optionally: (e) optionally, purification of isolated phycocyanin, wherein an additional step of enzymatic lysis of the glycogen is carried out with an enzyme suitable for degrading glycogen at a pH below 6 and a reaction temperature below 40°C, wherein the enzyme has alpha 1-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity, the enzymatic lysis being carried out on the crude suspension obtained in step (b) and/or on the crude solution obtained in step (c); wherein the ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins is 20% or below’ (instant application claim 12).
Applicant contends Rahman teaches that C. merolae lacks cell walls. As Chen uses enzymes only to break the cell walls of cyanobacteria, the skilled artisan would have found no motivation to use enzymes on C. merolae and would have simply used the solution already disclosed in Rahman, namely an osmotic shock.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that nowhere in Chen is the teaching of only using enzymes to break the cell walls of cyanobacteria. As such, the argument that the skilled artisan would have found no motivation to use enzymes on C. merolae and would have simply used the solution already disclosed in Rahman is unfounded and presumptuous.
Applicant contends Chen and Rahman both disclose precipitation of phycocyanin by ammonium sulfate after performing cell lysis and centrifugation. Therefore, even if a skilled artisan would have combined the teaching of Chen et Rahman, he would simply have performed osmotic shock process, following by centrifugation and ammonium sulfate precipitation to collect phycocyanin. The skilled person in the art would not have found any motivation to perform the enzymatic degradation of glycogen as defined in the claimed process.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Applicant has no basis that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to believe that if a skilled artisan would have combined the teaching of Chen et Rahman, he would simply have performed osmotic shock process, following by centrifugation and ammonium sulfate precipitation to collect phycocyanin. Examiner contends that Applicant has not provided any evidence that the skilled person in the art would not have found any motivation to perform the enzymatic degradation of glycogen as defined in the claimed process.
Applicant contends that Juarez does not recite that glycogen is a component of cyanobacterial cell walls. Indeed, Juarez recites that glycogen is inside the cell of cyanobacteria as storage products (see at page 183, paragraph 2 of Juarez). Juarez teaches, in paragraph 2 of page 184, that "Some photosynthetic microorganisms, such as many cyanobacteria, accumulate carbohydrates only as an energy and carbon reserve." Therefore, it is clear from the teaching of Juarez that glycogen of cyanobacteria is only in the cell as storage product and is not part of the cell walls of cyanobacteria. Therefore, by combining the teaching of Chen which discloses that the enzymes are only used to break the wall of the cell with the teaching of Juarez, it cannot be deduced that separation of the cell wall from phycocyanin would result in a separation of glycogen from phycocyanin.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that glycogen inside the cell of cyanobacteria as storage products has no relevance to the argument as there is no teaching in the presented art that the enzymes taught by Chen are only used to break the wall of the cell.
Applicant contends that none of the cited documents suggests or even mentions that the elimination of all or part of the glycogen in a solution of phycocyanins extracted from Cyanidiales makes it possible not only to obtain a purer extract but also to avoid diluting the coloring power of the final extract. None of the cited documents suggest or mention a solution to use filtration while overcoming the problems associated with glycogen. Based on such silence, a skilled person in the art would have found no guidance or even motivation to develop the claimed process.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Applicant does not recite the elimination of all or part of the glycogen in a solution of phycocyanins extracted from Cyanidiales. Applicant recites ‘wherein the ratio of glycogen to phycocyanin in the separated phycocyanins is 20% or below’ (instant application claim 1).
The rejection of claims 5-7, 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2011, CN102433015A, Date Published: 2012-5-2, machine translation using espacenet, cited on IDS filed 1/20/2022) {herein Chen} in view of Rahman et al (Published online: 21 November 2016, J Appl Phycol, cited on PTO-892 dated 8/29/2025) {herein Rahman}, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-13, 15-23 in further view of Hii et al (2012, Date Available: 12 June 2012, Enzyme Research, doi:10.1155/2012/921362, cited on PTO-892 filed 2/28/2024) {herein Hii} as evidenced by the Instant Application, Juarez et al (2017, Microalgae-Based Biofuels and Biproducts, doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101023-5.00008-X, cited on PTO-892 filed 2/28/2024) {herein Juarez}.
As amended, claim 5 is drawn to the process according to claim 1, wherein the enzyme mixture which comprises at least one enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity and at least one enzyme with al-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity.
As amended, claim 6 is drawn to the process according to claim 5, wherein the at least one enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity is a pullulanase.
Previously presented claim 7 is drawn to the process according to claim 5, wherein the enzyme mixture comprises a pectinase and a pullulanase.
Previously presented claim 9 is drawn to the process according to claim 8, wherein the enzyme is a glucoamylase.
With respect to claim 5, Chen teaches a process of extracting phycocyanin from a solution containing crude phycocyanin after homogenization of cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8) via enzymatic digestion utilizing pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3), wherein the constant temperature ranges from 30C to 50C (page 3, para 6). Evidentiary reference of the instant application recites pectinase has alpha 1-4 galactosiduronic activity and alpha 1-4 glucosidase (or alpha-glucosidase) activity (specification: page 5, lines 21-22). As such, Examiner is interpreting pectinase as an enzyme with alpha 1-4 glucosidase activity, as recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
The teachings of Chen in view of Rahman as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-13, 15-23 are set forth in the 103 rejection above.
However, Chen, in view of Rahman do not teach the process of claim 5, wherein the enzyme is an enzyme mixture which comprises at least one enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity and at least one enzyme with alpha 1-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity (claim 5). The process of claim 6, wherein the enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity is a pullulanase (claim 6). The process of claim 7, wherein the enzyme mixture comprises a pectinase and a pullulanase (claim 7). The process of claim 9, wherein the enzyme is a glucoamylase (claim 9).
With respect to claim 5, 9, Hii teaches when debranching enzymes pullulanase and glucoamylase are used simultaneously during the breaking down on sugar, maximum levels of degradation are achieved (page 7, column 2, para 1). Based on Applicant’s disclosure in claim 6 of the instant Application, Examiner is interpreting pullulanase as an enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity as Applicant discloses said interpretation. Examiner is also interpreting glucoamylase as having both alpha 1-4 glucosidase and alpha 1-6 glucosidase activities as the evidentiary evidence of the instant application specification recites said limitation (page 6, lines 14-16). Since the limitation of ‘an enzyme mixture’ is not clearly defined in the instant application, Examiner is interpreting pullulanase and glucoamylase as an enzyme mixture with at least one enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity and at least one enzyme with alpha 1-4 glucosidase or polygalacturonase activity.
With respect to claims 6-7, Hii teaches isomylase is the known enzyme that completely debranches glycogen (page 4, column 2, para 3). Hii further teaches microbial pullulanase attracts interest because of its specific action on alpha 1, 6 linkages (page 3, column 2, para 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Chen et al of a process of extracting phycocyanin from a solution containing crude phycocyanin from cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8) via enzymatic digestion utilizing pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3), which have alpha 1-4 glucosidase, wherein the temperature during experimentation ranges from 30C to 50C (page 3, para 6) or combine the teachings of Rahman et al and Hii et al because Hi teaches when debranching enzymes pullulanase and glucoamylase are used simultaneously during the breaking down on sugar, maximum levels of degradation are achieved (page 7, column 2, para 1). Whereas, Rahman teaches a process wherein phycocyanin is purified from Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae (pages 1234, column 1, para 2 and column 2, para 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Chen et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Rahman and Hii because Hii provides the motivation for Chen, in view of Rahman to utilize a mixture of at least one enzyme with alpha 1-6 glucosidase activity (pullinase) and at least one enzyme with alpha 1-4 glucosidase (glucoamylase) as the enzymes would work together to specifically hydrolyse the branch points in the amylopectin residues, followed by the hydrolysis of linear 1,4 alpha glycosidic linkages of the sugar (glycogen) (page 7, column 2, para 1). Chen would be motivated to utilize a mixture of pullinase and glucoamylase (taught by Hii) for the complete breakdown of sugar as Hii teaches when both pullinase and glucoamylase are utilized together, the maximum degradation of sugar can be achieved (page 7, column 2, para 1). One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of phycocyanins as natural edible pigment would have a reasonable expectation of success to use pullinase and glucoamylase together for the purification of phycocyanins from Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae as Hii teaches utilizing pullinase and glucoamylase results in less glucoamylase activity needed, thereby resulting in fewer branched oligosaccharides accumulating in solution and overall complete degradation of the sugar (page 7, column 2, para 2).
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for purifying phycocyanins from Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae via enzymatic degradation with a mixture of pullinase, glucoamylase and pectinase because Hii provides the teaching of using pullinase and glucoamylase results in maximum degradation of sugar (Hii: page 7, column 2, para 1). Rahman provides the teachings of using Galdieria sulphuraria and Cyanidioschyzon merolae as the microbial source of phycocyanins (abstract). Whereas Chen teaches the method of utilizing pectinase (page 4, Experimental Example 2 and page 5, para 1-3), which have alpha 1-4 glucosidase, for the purification of phycocyanins from cyanobacteria (page 3, paragraph 8). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant contends the combined art does not teach the instant application claims.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Chen would be motivated to utilize a mixture of pullinase and glucoamylase (taught by Hii) for the complete breakdown of sugar as Hii teaches when both pullinase and glucoamylase are utilized together, the maximum degradation of sugar can be achieved (page 7, column 2, para 1).
Conclusion
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1-2,4-13 and 15-23 are pending.
Claims 3, 14, 24-33 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2,4-13 and 15-23 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