DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Application Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
3. Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 05/15/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
4. Claims 4-5 and 8-10 are cancelled.
5. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-15 are pending.
6. Applicant’s remarks filed on 05/15/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 03/02/2026 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The IDS filed on 05/15/2026 has been considered by the examiner and a copy of the Form PTO/SB/08 is attached to the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-3 are newly 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 new grounds of rejection is necessitated by applicants’ amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the protease is selected from a protease comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 39 over its entire length and comprising (i) at least three amino acid substitutions 3T, 4I, 99E, and 199I at the positions corresponding to positions 3, 4, 99, and 199 of SEQ ID NO: 39, and (ii) in at least one position corresponding to positions 74, 136, 143, 154, 161, 163, 171, 200, 203, 209, 212, or 256 of SEQ ID NO: 39”.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of the mutations set forth in part (1) and (2) are indefinite because it is unclear whether these mutations are in addition to those recited in claim 1 or are different from those recited in claim 1 because while SEQ ID NO: 27 falls within the scope of a sequence that is 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 39, some of the mutations recited in the claims are different. Accordingly, the metes and bounds upon which protection is sought cannot be ascertained from the claims.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “having at least sequence identity to the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 30” is indefinite because SEQ ID NO: 30 is less than 90% identical to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 39, and therefore, the metes and bounds upon which protection is sought cannot be ascertained from the claims.
It is suggested that applicants’ clarify the meaning of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
10. The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment to the claims to cancel claim 10.
11. Claims 2 and 3 are is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This new grounds of rejection is necessitated by applicants’ amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the protease is selected from a protease comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 39 over its entire length and comprising (i) at least three amino acid substitutions 3T, 4I, 99E, and 199I at the positions corresponding to positions 3, 4, 99, and 199 of SEQ ID NO: 39, and (ii) in at least one position corresponding to positions 74, 136, 143, 154, 161, 163, 171, 200, 203, 209, 212, or 256 of SEQ ID NO: 39”.
Claim 2 recites mutations that are broader than those in claim 1 or are different from those recited in claim 1 because while SEQ ID NO: 27 falls within the scope of a sequence that is 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 39, some of the mutations recited in the claims are different. Accordingly, the breadth of the claim is broader than claim 1 and fails to further limit claim 1 upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “having at least sequence identity to the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 30” is broader than claim 1 because SEQ ID NO: 30 is less than 90% identical to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 39. Accordingly, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1 upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. The rejection of claims 4-5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehlenschlaeger et al. (WO 2017/186943 A1; cited on IDS filed on 06/17/2022) in view of Rasmussen et al. (WO 2016/001449 A1; cited on IDS filed 10/07/2024) is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment to the claims to cancel claims 4-5 and 8-10.
13. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-12, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehlenschlaeger et al. (WO 2017/186943 A1; cited on IDS filed on 06/17/2022) in view of Herbst et al. (WO 2017/215925 A1; cited on PTO-892 mailed on 10/01/2025 with US PGPub 20190144792 serving as an English translation) is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the protease is selected from a protease comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 39 over its entire length and comprising (i) at least three amino acid substitutions 3T, 4I, 99E, and 199I at the positions corresponding to positions 3, 4, 99, and 199 of SEQ ID NO: 39, and (ii) in at least one position corresponding to positions 74, 136, 143, 154, 161, 163, 171, 200, 203, 209, 212, or 256 of SEQ ID NO: 39” and amendment to cancel claim 5 and 8-10.
14. The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehlenschlaeger et al. (WO 2017/186943 A1; cited on IDS filed on 06/17/2022) in view of Rasmussen et al. (WO 2016/001449 A1; cited on IDS filed 10/07/2024) is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below. The rejection has been modified in order to address applicants’ amendment to the claims.
15. With respect to claims 1-2 and 4, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach a cleaning composition comprising a dispersin, a protease and optionally a cleaning component [see Abstract; p. 1-2, p. 4, p. 7, line 15]. Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein an amount of dispersin and polypeptide in the composition ranges from 0.01 to 50 ppm [see p. 18, bottom].
With respect to claim 5, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein the dispersin is microbial [see p. 1, bottom].
With respect to claim 6, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein the dispersin is a Terribacillus clade dispersin [see p. 1, bottom].
With respect to claim 7, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein the dispersin catalyzes the hydrolysis of b-1,6-glycosidic linkages of N-acetyl-glucosamine polymers [see p. 4, lines 12-14].
With respect to claims 8-9, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition, wherein the dispersin comprises a polypeptide having at least 100% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 17 [see p. 1, bottom; alignment attached as APPENDIX A].
With respect to claim 10, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein an amount of dispersin in the composition ranges from 0.01 to 50 ppm [see p. 18, bottom].
With respect to claim 11, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein the cleaning component is selected from surfactants, builders and bleach components [see p. 6, bottom to top of p. 7].
With respect to claim 12, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein the composition is a solid, solid laundry detergent, liquid laundry detergent, liquid laundry detergent in a unit dose form, fabric finisher, dishwashing composition comprising a zeolite builder, phosphonate builder, at least one further enzyme, one polymer, surfactants, [see p. 21-26, p. 36-39].
With respect to claim 14, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach a method of deep cleaning an item, wherein the method comprises contacting the item with the cleaning composition and rinsing the item, wherein the item is a textile [see p. 2].
With respect to claim 15, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach the cleaning composition wherein the dispersin is a Terribacillus clade dispersin [see p. 1, bottom].
However, Oehlenschlaeger et al. does not teach the specific proteases of claims 1, 2, 4, and 14.
Rasmussen et al. teach subtilisin variants exhibiting increased stability and improved wash performance, wherein the subtilisin variant comprising an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to the amino acid sequence of 39 and greater than 99% identical to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 27 [see alignments attached as APPENDIX B], wherein the variant in relation to SEQ ID NO: 27 comprises a glutamic acid residue at position 101 and further comprises substitutions S3T, V199M, L262E, T58Y [see p. 107-108] and wherein the variant in relation to SEQ ID NO: 39 comprises the substitutions 3T, 4I, and 99E and substitutions at positions 161, 163, 209, 212, and 256 [see p. 107].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oehlenschlaeger et al. and Rasmussen et al. to combine the subtilisin variants of Rasmussen et al. with the dispersin cleaning compositions of Oehlenschlaeger et al. because Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach cleaning compositions comprising disperins and proteases. Rasmussen et al. teach several subtilisin protease variants that exhibit improved wash performance that can be used in cleaning compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability, and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Oehlenschlaeger et al. and Rasmussen et al. because Rasmussen et al. acknowledges these subtilisin variants exhibit improved wash performance. 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.
Regarding the limitation wherein the cleaning composition exhibits a synergistic effect on the removal of protein and polysaccharide biofilms, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach that the preferable proteases are the variants described in WO2016/0014449 (Rasmussen) [see p. 31, bottom to top of p. 32], as such, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the instant case, the synergistic effect is an advantage that flows naturally from the suggestion of the prior art.
16. Claim 3 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehlenschlaeger et al. (WO 2017/186943 A1; cited on IDS filed on 06/17/2022) in view of Rasmussen et al. (WO 2016/001449 A1; cited on IDS filed 10/07/2024) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-15, and further in view of Herbst et al. (WO 2017/215925 A1; cited on PTO-892 mailed on 10/01/2025 with US PGPub 20190144792 serving as an English translation). This new grounds of rejection is necessitated by applicants’ amendment to the claims.
17. The relevant teachings of Oehlenschlaeger et al. and Rasmussen et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-15 are set forth above.
However, Oehlenschlaeger et al. and Rasmussen et al. do not teach the specific proteases of claim 3 having at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 30.
Herbst et al. teach proteases comprising an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 30 and has an amino acid substitution at positions 12, 43, 122, 127, 154, 156, 160, 211, 212, and 222 wherein the substitution is 12L, 43V, 122L, 127P, 154S, 156A, 160S, 211N, 211L, 212D, 212H, or 222S that have good wash performance and provide synergy in cleaning compositions [see Abstract; paragraphs 0008 and 0085; alignment attached as APPENDIX C].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oehlenschlaeger et al., Rasmussen et al. and Herbst et al. to combine the protease variants of Herbst et al. with the dispersin cleaning compositions of Oehlenschlaeger et al. and Rasmussen et al. because Oehlenschlaeger et al. and Rasmussen et al. teach cleaning compositions comprising disperins and proteases. Herbst et al. teach several protease variants that exhibit improved wash performance that can be used in cleaning compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability, and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Oehlenschlaeger et al., Rasmussen et al. and Herbst et al. because Herbst et al. acknowledges these protease variants exhibit improved wash performance. 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 Regarding Prior Art Rejections
18. Beginning on p. 18 of applicants’ remarks, applicants in summary contend that the cited combination does not provide an articulated reason with a reasonable expectation of success to select the specific protease of Rasmussen for a synergistic effect of biofilm removal.
These arguments are found to be not persuasive in view of the modified rejection set forth above. As stated above, Oehlenschlaeger et al. teach that the preferable proteases are the variants described in WO2016/0014449 (Rasmussen) [see p. 31, bottom to top of p. 32], as such, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). MPEP 2145.II states “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) (Claims were directed to grooved carbon disc brakes wherein the grooves were provided to vent steam or vapor during a braking action. A prior art reference taught noncarbon disc brakes which were grooved for the purpose of cooling the faces of the braking members and eliminating dust. The court held the prior art references when combined would overcome the problems of dust and overheating solved by the prior art and would inherently overcome the steam or vapor cause of the problem relied upon for patentability by applicants. Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function (here venting steam or vapor) "would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art." 596 F.2d at 1022, 201 USPQ at 661.); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). In the instant case, the synergistic effect is an advantage that flows naturally from the suggestion of the prior art.
Double Patenting
19. The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/15/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Non-provisional Application No. 17/786562 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-15 over claims 18-23 of copending Application No. 17/786562 in view of Rasmussen et al. (WO 2016/001449 A1; cited on IDS filed 10/07/2024) and Herbst et al. (WO 2017/215925 A1; cited on PTO-892 mailed on 10/01/2025 with US PGPub 20190144792 serving as an English translation) is withdrawn in view of the filing of the terminal disclaimer on 05/15/2026.
Conclusion
20. Status of the claims:
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-15 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for an allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-3537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8AM to 5PM.
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.
/PAUL J HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
APPENDIX A
Oehlenschlaeger et al. with SEQ ID NO: 17
CC PN WO2017186943-A1.
XX
CC PD 02-NOV-2017.
XX
CC PF 28-APR-2017; 2017WO-EP060265.
XX
PR 29-APR-2016; 2016DK-00000262.
XX
CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS.
XX
CC PI Oehlenschlaeger CB, Segura DR, Vejborg RM, Geertz-Hansen HM;
CC PI Baltsen LET, Salomon J;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1705; Length 324;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 324; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 QDQEKGITIDISRKHYTVETLKSLVDEISYNGGNYVQLHFSDNENYAIA SEYLGQSSENT 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 QDQEKGITIDISRKHYTVETLKSLVDEISYNGGNYVQLHFSDNENYAIA SEYLGQSSENT 60
Qy 61 NNTYLTKNELLSLIAYSNDKDILVIPDIDLPAHSKGWLELIKKKDVKLYNDIVTDYSEET 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 NNTYLTKNELLSLIAYSNDKDILVIPDIDLPAHSKGWLELIKKKDVKLYNDIVTDYSEET 120
Qy 121 LDYYDNRVALDTVNQLLDEVLDLFYQPKFEGKQRIVLGGDEVSGSEVHQLDFIDFMNQIA 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 LDYYDNRVALDTVNQLLDEVLDLFYQPKFEGKQRIVLGGDEVSGSEVHQLDFIDFMNQIA 180
Qy 181 STVKESKYEPQMWNDSITSEGIANLDDSFSILYWQQSTLSSGEESLNVEDFENWGFSVYN 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 STVKESKYEPQMWNDSITSEGIANLDDSFSILYWQQSTLSSGEESLNVEDFENWGFSVYN 240
Qy 241 YNAYSLYFLPSNGFTQEDINEQMDYMNWAYAHNKFFYISDYYHAVETSNVKGSSLTFWGE 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 YNAYSLYFLPSNGFTQEDINEQMDYMNWAYAHNKFFYISDYYHAVETSNVKGSSLTFWGE 300
Qy 301 HATDLSQKKLLKQELPLIRHYLNL 324
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 HATDLSQKKLLKQELPLIRHYLNL 324
APPENDIX B
Rasmussen et al. with SEQ ID NO: 24
CC PN WO2016001449-A1.
XX
CC PD 07-JAN-2016.
XX
CC PF 06-JUL-2015; 2015WO-EP065375.
XX
PR 04-JUL-2014; 2014DK-00000367.
XX
CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS.
XX
CC PI Rasmussen FW, Hansen PK, Christensen LLH;
ALIGNMENT:
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1362; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 269; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGADGRGAISSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGADGRGAISSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGASSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGASSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
Rasmussen et al. with SEQ ID NO: 27
CC PN WO2016001449-A1.
XX
CC PD 07-JAN-2016.
XX
CC PF 06-JUL-2015; 2015WO-EP065375.
XX
PR 04-JUL-2014; 2014DK-00000367.
XX
CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS.
XX
CC PI Rasmussen FW, Hansen PK, Christensen LLH;
ALIGNMENT:
Query Match 99.6%; Score 1357; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 268; Conservative 0; Mismatches 1; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGADGEGAISSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGADGRGAISSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGASSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGASSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
Rasmussen et al. with SEQ ID NO: 39
CC PN WO2016001449-A1.
XX
CC PD 07-JAN-2016.
XX
CC PF 06-JUL-2015; 2015WO-EP065375.
XX
PR 04-JUL-2014; 2014DK-00000367.
XX
CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS.
XX
CC PI Rasmussen FW, Hansen PK, Christensen LLH;
ALIGNMENT:
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1362; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 269; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGADGRGAISSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGADGRGAISSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGASSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGASSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
APPENDIX C
Herbst et al. with SEQ ID NO: 30
US-16-309-236-1
Filing date in PALM: 2018-12-12
Sequence 1, US/16309236
Patent No. 10941371
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
TITLE OF INVENTION: BACILLUS GIBSONII PROTEASE AND VARIANTS THEREOF
FILE REFERENCE: PT033917WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/16/309,236
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-12-12
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 102016210628.7
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-06-15
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 9
SEQ ID NO 1
LENGTH: 269
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Bacillus gibsonii
ALIGNMENT:
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1372; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 269; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 QQTVPWGITRVQAPTVHNRGITGSGVKVAILDTGIAQHSDLTIRGGASFVPGESTTADLN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 QQTVPWGITRVQAPTVHNRGITGSGVKVAILDTGIAQHSDLTIRGGASFVPGESTTADLN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTVAALNNSIGVIGVAPSADLYAVKVLGANGRGSVSGIAQGLEWAATNNMHIA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTVAALNNSIGVIGVAPSADLYAVKVLGANGRGSVSGIAQGLEWAATNNMHIA 120
Qy 121 NMSLGSDAPSTTLERAVNYATSRGVLVIAATGNNGTGSIGYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNRR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NMSLGSDAPSTTLERAVNYATSRGVLVIAATGNNGTGSIGYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNRR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGTGIDIVAPGVGIQSTYLNNSYASMPGTSMATPHVAGVAALVKQKNPSWNATQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGTGIDIVAPGVGIQSTYLNNSYASMPGTSMATPHVAGVAALVKQKNPSWNATQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATNLGNSSQFGSGLVNADAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATNLGNSSQFGSGLVNADAATR 269
Prosecution Insights