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 1-11,13-15,17-21 and 23-27 are pending. Claims 12,16 and 22 have been cancelled. Claims 4,5,7-11,13-15 and 17-21 have been amended. Claims 24-27 are new. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11,13-15 and 24-27 in the reply filed on July 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 17-21 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “preferably a monooxygenase” and the claim also recites “flavin-containing monooxygenase” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further the term “preferably” is also indefinite as the examiner is unsure if the limitation is required. The examiner interpreted claim 7 to require either a monooxygenase or a flavin-containing monooxygenase.
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.
Claims 1-8,11,15,24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Azoreductase from alkaliphilic Bacillus sp. AO1 catalyzes indigo reduction. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (2018) 102: 9171-9181) in view of Ma (Biodegradation and Biotransformation of Indole: advances and Perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol 9, November 1, 2018; Article 2625, pages 1-18).
Suzuki teaches dyeing textiles with indigo by making the indigo in soluble form ( leucoindigo), immersing (dipping, dwelling) a textile in the leucoindigo to allow the dye to penetrate the textiles, then converting leucoindigo to indigo through air oxidation (page 9171, introduction). Suzuki further teaches indoxyl spontaneously dimerizes to produce leucoindigo followed by indigo (page 9171, introduction, page 9172, Fig 1). Suzuki further teaches an effective way to reduce the indigo to leucoindigo is using reducing enzymes such as azoreductases, particularly isolated AzoA (abstract). Suzuki teaches isolated AzoA (page 9175, right column, physicochemical properties of AzoA).
Suzuki does not teach hydroxylating indole in the presence of an oxidizing enzyme to indoxyl or converting tryptophan in the presence of tryptophanase to indoxyl.
Ma teaches converting tryptophan to indole using tryptophanase; converting indole to indoxyl using FMO (flavin monooxygenase hydroxylating indole in the presence of (Figures 9 and 10, pages 13 and 14). Ma teaches dyeing denim (fabric, page 8, left column, last paragraph). Ma teaches isolating oxygenases from microorganisms (page 9, left column, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Suzuki by producing indoxyl by first converting tryptophan in the presence of tryptophanase to indole and converting indole in the presence of flavin-containing monooxygenase to indoxyl as Ma teaches this is a known effective pathway for producing indoxyl in an indigo preparation process. It would have been further obvious to use the AzoA reducing enzyme to convert indoxyl to leucoindigo or convert indigo to leucoindigo as Suzuki teaches indoxyl spontaneously dimerizes to produce leucoindigo and then indigo. Adding the AzoA reducing enzyme would facilitate a reduction of either the indoxyl to leucoindigo or the indigo to leucoindigo form in a soluble reduced form of indigo for dyeing textiles followed by air oxidation to convert leucoindigo to indigo. It would have been further obvious to carry out the enzyme oxidation and enzyme reduction steps in a single pot to reduce the indoxyl to leucoindigo quickly before dimerizing can occur to indigo. Further a one-pot process reduces space, process time and loss of composition from transferring from one vessel to another as only a single vessel is necessary.
It would have been obvious to isolate the oxidizing, reducing and tryptophanase enzymes as Suzuki teaches purifying AzoA to near homogeneity and Ma teaches enzyme isolation from microorganisms is conventional. Enzyme isolation would provide a pure concentrated state of the enzyme for efficient and controlled conversion of tryptophan to indole, indole to indoxyl and indoxyl to leucoindigo.
Regarding a tryptophan derivative and the limitations of claims 3 and 6, if these claims were written in independent form the tryptophan derivative would still be an alternate embodiment and therefore optional. The examiner has found tryptophan and therefore has met the alternate embodiment of these claims.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Azoreductase from alkaliphilic Bacillus sp. AO1 catalyzes indigo reduction. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (2018) 102: 9171-9181) in view of Ma (Biodegradation and Biotransformation of Indole: advances and Perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol 9, November 1, 2018; Article 2625, pages 1-18) and further in view of Kaplan (US 2017/0362435).
Suzuki and Ma are relied upon as set forth above.
Suzuki and Ma do not teach immobilized enzymes, yarns or garments..
Kaplan teaches in indigo dyeing textiles, fabrics, yarns and garments are conventionally dyed (paragraphs 0020,0059) by alternating dipping the textiles in leucoindigo dyebath (paragraphs 0032-0033, 0080) and skying the textiles in air in more than one dye tanks continuously (paragraphs 0033, 0043, 056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Suzuki and Ma by dipping and skying the textiles of Suzuki and Ma as Kaplan teaches dyeing textiles with indigo is conventionally performed on garments, yarns and fabric by dipping into a leucoindigo (reduced indigo) solution followed by skying (air oxidation) multiple times in a plurality of dye tanks continuously.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Azoreductase from alkaliphilic Bacillus sp. AO1 catalyzes indigo reduction. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (2018) 102: 9171-9181) in view of Ma (Biodegradation and Biotransformation of Indole: advances and Perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol 9, November 1, 2018; Article 2625, pages 1-18) and further in view of Yan (Production of Indigo by Immobilization of E.Coli BL21 (DE3) Cells in Calcium Alginate Gel Capsules. Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 15(3), p 387-390, (2007).)
Suzuki and Ma are relied upon as set forth above.
Suzuki and Ma do not teach immobilized enzymes.
Yan teaches methods of using enzymes to convert indole to indigo, wherein immobilization of the enzymes led to the enzymes being less sensitive to variations in temperature and enzymes having a higher thermal stability with better stability in repeated operations (page 390, left column, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Suzuki and Ma by using immobilized oxidizing, reducing or tryptophanase enzymes as Yan teaches immobilized enzymes are less sensitive to variations in temperature and these enzymes have a higher thermal stability with better stability in repeated operations. Using a known method that enhances enzyme stability would be obvious in method of producing indigo which also use enzymes in leucoindigo production.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Azoreductase from alkaliphilic Bacillus sp. AO1 catalyzes indigo reduction. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (2018) 102: 9171-9181) in view of Ma (Biodegradation and Biotransformation of Indole: advances and Perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol 9, November 1, 2018; Article 2625, pages 1-18) and further in view of Rioz-Martinez (Exploring the biocatalytic scope of a bacterial flavin-containing monooxygenase, Org. Biomol. Chem, 2011, V9, pgs.1337-1341),
Suzuki and Ma are relied upon as set forth above.
Suzuki and Ma do not teach oxidizing enzymes coupled to phosphite dehydrogenase, particularly PTDH-mFMO.
Rioz-Martinez teaches a fusion cofactor-regenerating enzyme of PTDH-mFMO (mFMO is a monooxygenase; page 1337, right column , first paragraph of introduction) has the ability to form indigo blue from indole by a very efficient conversion (page 1338, left column, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Suzuki and Ma by using PTDH-mFMO as Rioz-Martinez teaches PTDH-mFMO enzyme has the ability to form indigo blue from indole by a very efficient conversion. Using a known a known enzyme that efficiently converts indole to indigo is obvious as these modification improve the conversion of indole to indigo. Nothing unobvious is seen in using a standard textile dyeing method to convert a known effective indigo precursor, indole, to a second precursor, indoxyl, and then converting to indigo with effective and efficient cofactor-regenerating oxidizing enzymes such as PTDH-mFMO.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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. Claim 9 requires the presence of an reducing enzyme coupled to a glucose dehydrogenase, phosphite dehydrogenase or formate dehydrogenase and while the prior art teaches oxidizing enzymes coupled to phosphite dehydrogenase, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest reducing enzymes coupled to the claimed dehydrogenases. Claim 10 requires the presence of PTDH-AzoA and while the prior art teaches producing indigo using a reducing enzyme AzoA, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the fusion enzyme PTDH-AzoA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761