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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 are pending. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 are under examination. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 are rejected.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
188
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
84
976
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
50
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
100
980
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 04/15/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 102 rejection of claims 1, and 3-4 anticipated by Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-4, and 11-13 over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claim 2 over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 11-13 and in further view of Qingcal et al. (CN103320480, Published 09-2013) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 5-7 over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013) and Qingcal et al. (CN103320480, Published 09-2013) as applied to claims 1-4, and 11-13 and in further view of Zhemin et al. (CN106755155, Published 05-2017) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 8-9 over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 11-13 and in further view of Ma et al. (CN105018405, Published 11-2015) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 over Wei et al. (CN108191688 , Published 08-2018) and Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-13 over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013), Qingcal et al. (CN103320480, Published 09-2013), Zhemin et al. (CN106755155, Published 05-2017), Ma et al. (CN105018405, Published 11-2015), Lei et al. (CN101429517, Published 05-2013) and/or Anderson et al. (USPGPub 2017/0211105, Published 07-2017) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 over Wei et al. (CN108191688 , Published 08-2018) and Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013), Qingcal et al. (CN103320480, Published 09-2013), Zhemin et al. (CN106755155, Published 05-2017), Ma et al. (CN105018405, Published 11-2015), Lei et al. (CN101429517, Published 05-2013) and/or Anderson et al. (USPGPub 2017/0211105, Published 07-2017) in the non-final mailed 04/15/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The following newly added claim objection, 112(a), 112(b) and 103 rejections constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the current application.
Newly Applied Rejections were necessitated by amendment
Claim interpretation
The newly added phrase “the amino acid sequence… naturally expressed” in claim 1 is interpreted to be expression from the naturally occurring or recombinant versions of the claimed microorganisms.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: As recited immediately above, claim 1 utilizes the word “naturally”. The word “naturally” is redundant unless the meaning is one of naturally occurring microorganisms. This would exclude recombinant microorganisms. It is not clear how the word “naturally” further limits the claimed expression. Removing the word “naturally” does not appear to alter the stope of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 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 claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This rejection was necessitated by amendment.
The following is a written description rejection.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to
ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the
specific subject matter later claimed by him.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. MPEP 2163 I.
An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by "whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it"). MPEP 2163 I.
The MPEP 2163 II. A. 3. (a) i) lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient.”
In the instant case, the claims are drawn to amino acid sequences of the claimed enzymes derived from the claimed microorganisms
Level of knowledge in the art:
Anderson et al. (USPGPub 2017/0211105, Published 07-2017) teach the enzyme aspartate decarboxylase (ADC) may be encoded by the mfnA gene from Methanocaldococcus jannaschii DSM2661 (par. 81-82). However, the prior art is silent to the claimed amino acid sequence of ADC/aspA derived from the currently claimed microorganisms.
Partial structure:
Applicant has not supplied a complete amino acid sequence such that identification of the claimed amino acid sequence can be established.
(3) Physical and/or chemical properties and (4) Functional characteristics:
No nexus between structural features of any amino acid sequence to the catalytic behavior of the current enzymes was established in the original disclosure.
(4) Method of making the claimed invention:
The original disclosure recites engineered microorganisms expressing the claimed enzymes encoded with specific nucleic acid sequences (current Figures SEQ ID’s). See examples starting paragraph 95. However, no description of the claimed amino acid sequence was given nor are there any examples of the claimed naturally occurring microorganisms with their respective amino acid SEQ ID’s.
The claims lack written description for the claimed amino acid sequences due to a lack of amino acid SEQ ID’s.
Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written
Description for amino acid SEQ ID’s.
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 1-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 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. This rejection was necessitated by amendment.
Claim 1 is directed to amino acid sequences of the claimed enzymes derived
from the claimed microorganisms. These sequences are not identified. Therefore, the
metes and bonds of the claims cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013. See English
translation filed 02/21/2025), Chibata et al. (US Patent 3,214,345, Patent date 10-1965), Pei et al. (Molecular engineering of L-aspartate-α-decarboxylase for improved activity and catalytic stability, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnpl, 101, pp. 6015-6021, Published 2017) and Saw et al. (Encapsulated in silica: genome, proteome and physiology of the thermophilic bacterium Anoxybacillus flavithermus WK1, Genome Biology, Vol. 9, Issue 11 Article number R161, pp. 1-16, Published 2008). This rejection was necessitated by amendment.
Scope of the Prior Art
Jiang Guangyu teach the process to prepare beta-alanine from the reactant containing fumaric acid and aqueous ammonia using a catalytic composition of enzymes L-Aspartase and L-Aspartic acid-α-decarboxylase expressed from the Escherichia coli wet cells. (Practical Example 3, par. 26-29, page 6 of 7). Jiang Guangyu teach adding fumaric acid during the reaction to maintain the pH of 7.0.
Concerning the total moles of fumaric acid added being initial moles of ammonia in the reactant minus an initial mole of the fumaric acid in the reactant, these moles of added fumaric acid are present in Practical Example 3 of reference Jiang Guangyu. The reason being the methods of the prior art are substantially identical to the claimed methods.
Both the current invention and the prior art have an initial amount of fumaric acid
and ammonia at a pH of 7.0 and add fumaric acid to the reaction to maintain the pH of
7.0. The current specification in paragraph 52 details the pH of the reaction being
controlled at 6.8-7.2, which encompasses the pH of 7.0.
Substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products. See MPEP 2112.01 I. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jiang Guangyu teach continuously feeding fumaric acid to control the reaction pH at 7.0 (Practical Example par. 29). Jiang Guangyu teach a reaction having 50-150g/L of initial fumaric acid (par. 18-23).
Jiang Guangyu teach a reaction having 50-150g/L of initial fumaric acid and a weight of 20-50g/L of wet cells (claims 4 and 5 of par. 18-23). This overlaps the claimed of 10-30 w/w% in claim 7.
Jiang Guangyu teach a reaction having 50-150g/L of initial fumaric acid and a weight of 20-50g/L of wet cells (claims 4 and 5). This overlaps the claimed of 10-40 w/w% in claim 9.
Ascertaining the Difference
The prior art is silent to the single or co-expression of the claimed ADC/aspA derived from Anoxybacillus flavithermus. The prior art is silent to the fed-batch manner addition of the fumaric acid and the added fumaric acid.
Secondary Reference
Chibata et al. teach Bacillus subtilis and overlapping bacterium Escherichia coli
taught by Jiang Guangyu, are suitable for producing aspartic acid via the production of aspartase (column 1, lines 25-60).
Pei et al. teach Bacillus subtilis and overlapping bacterium Escherichia coli contain the genes for producing ADC (p. 6015, left column).
Saw et al. teach the specific Bacilli bacterium Anoxybacillus flavithermus (p. 2).
Saw et al. teach the overlapping Bacillus subtilis and Anoxybacillus flavithermus are bacilli bacteria (p. 2).
The above teachings overlap and render the prior art analogous art to the invention.
Additional teachings of Pei et al. are as follows. Concerning the claimed recombinant cells, Pei et al. teach E. coli. being used to overexpress genes encoding the ADC enzyme from other microorganisms. This is a teaching of recombinantly engineering bacteria.
Obviousness
Due to known bacilli bacterium having genetic coding for the preparation of the enzymes ADC and aspA, it would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried another known Bacilli, naturally occuring Anoxybacillus flavithermus for the co-expression or individual expression of the enzymes ADC and/or aspA in place of the Escherichia coli wet cells taught by Jiang Guangyu with a reasonable expectation of success.
The ordinary artisan would have done so to substitute one known method for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141 III (B).
The ordinary artisan would have looked to Chibata et al., Pei et al. and Saw et al.
due to the overlapping teachings of microorganisms. More specifically, bacillus and bacillus being utilized to prepare ADC and aspA.
The success from the knowledge that bacilli bacterium have genetic coding for the preparation of the enzymes ADC and aspA.
Upon choosing the Anoxybacillus flavithermus for the individual and/or co-expression of the enzymes ADC and aspA, the amino acid sequence of the ADC and aspA derived from Anoxybacillus flavithermus would have been identical to the amino acid sequence of the enzymes naturally expressed in Anoxybacillus flavithermus.
Next, it would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the fed-batch manner with a reasonable expectation of success. From the limited options of adding the fumaric acid, either continuously or in a batch, the ordinary artisan would have tried the batch fed addition of the fumaric acid and would have done so in such a way as to maintain the pH at the taught pH of 7.0. MPEP 2141 III (E).
Concerning the added fumaric acid being in a concentration of 50 to 400 g/L presumably aqueous (see specification par 10 line 4 and par. 97 line 7), the prior art discloses the reaction with fumaric acid is in aqueous. Premixing the aqueous with fumaric acid is obvious Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04 IV C. One mole of fumaric acid to one mole of NH3 is required. Adding these reagents premixed in water is also found to be obvious. Finding the workable ranges of reagents to water would have been obvious through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. A. and B. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Concerning claim 5, recombinantly expressing enzymes are known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to encode E. coli. and/or Anoxybacillus flavithermus with the genes encoding the claimed enzymes or enzyme from Anoxybacillus flavithermus to co-express or singularly express the enzymes. The success from the fact that Pei et al. teach recombinantly engineering bacteria.
Concerning the weights of the cells of claim 7 and 9, the ordinary artisan would have found the workable ranges of the amount of cells to fumaric acid through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. A. and B. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 I.: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).”
Concerning claim 11, fumaric acid is taught to be added to aqueous ammonia (Practical example 3, par. 28). Finding the workable ranges via routine experimentation is obvious. MPEP 2144.05 II. A. and B. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the process of the prior art would contain unreacted ammonia without evidence. Moreover, as argued in the rejection of record the processes of the prior art and those of the invention are substantially identical and would yield substantially identical products.
Concerning the unexpected results, these would have occurred due to the prior
art teaching substantially identical processes.
Moreover, the specification recites impurities and salt occur when adding an inorganic acid to adjust the pH (par. 48). The methods of the prior art do not use an inorganic salt to adjust the pH. Therefore the salts and impurities would not have occurred.
Newly Applied Rejections
Concerning the references not teaching aspartase/ L-aspartate-a-decarboxylase derived from Anoxybacillus flavithermus, the above rejection cures this deficiency.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013), Chibata et al. (US Patent 3,214,345, Patent date 10-1965), Pei et al. (Molecular engineering of L-aspartate-α-decarboxylase for improved activity and catalytic stability, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnpl, 101, pp. 6015-6021, Published 2017) and Saw et al. (Encapsulated in silica: genome, proteome and physiology of the thermophilic bacterium
Anoxybacillus flavithermus WK1, Genome Biology, Vol. 9, Issue 11 Article
number R161, pp. 1-16, Published 2008) as applied to claims 1, 3-9 and 11-13 in the above 103 rejection and in further view of Qingcal et al. (CN103320480, Published 09-2013).
Scope of the Prior Art
The combinational teachings of the prior art concerning claims 1, 3-9, and 11-13 are in the above 103 rejection and are incorporated by reference.
Ascertaining the Difference
the prior art is silent to a purified L-Aspartase and L-Aspartic acid-alpha-decarboxylase.
Secondary Reference
However, Qingcal et al. teach the crude enzyme of L-Aspartase and L-Aspartic acid-alpha-decarboxylase or the microorganisms housing the enzymes can be used to prepare beta-alanine via ammonium formate (par. 19-24) The crude enzymes are enzymes removed from the cells. This is the claimed purified enzymes.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the purified enzymes over the microorganisms taught by the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success.
The reason being Qingcal et al. teach the microorganisms or the enzymes can
be used to make the beta-alanine.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-13, 19-20, 23, 26-27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN108191688 , Published 08-2018) and Jiang Guangyu (CN102851333, Published 01-2013), Chibata et al. (US Patent 3,214,345, Patent date 10-1965), Pei et al. (Molecular engineering of L-aspartate-α-decarboxylase for improved activity and catalytic stability, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnpl, 101, pp. 6015-6021, Published 2017) and Saw et al. (Encapsulated in silica: genome, proteome and physiology of the thermophilic bacterium Anoxybacillus flavithermus WK1, Genome Biology, Vol. 9, Issue 11 Article number R161, pp. 1-16, Published 2008).
Scope of the Prior Art
Wei et al. teach the following.
PNG
media_image5.png
220
1535
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
231
1535
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
95
1479
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
45
1539
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
225
1536
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
226
1526
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ascertaining the Difference
Reference Wei et al. is silent to the preparation of beta-alanine. Wei et al. is silent to an alkaline solution.
Secondary Reference
However, the combinational teachings of the prior art were argued above in the previous 103 rejections to have taught the preparation of beta-alanine which are incorporated by reference.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the beta-alanine arrived at by the teachings of the prior art in the methods to prepare the current beta-alanine salt and/or D-calcium pantithenate taught by Wei et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have done so to satisfy a source of beta-alanine.
Concerning the solution of an alkaline, Wei et al. teach the use of calcium hydroxide and methanol (par. 16 and 36 respectively). The ordinary artisan could have added the calcium hydroxide to some or all the methanol to prepare a solution prior to the addition of the methanol to the reaction with a reasonable expectation of success. In doing so the ordinary artisan would have arrived at the current invention.
Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.G.D/Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights