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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/IN2021/050558 filed 06/09/2021. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on IN20201 1024273 filed 06/09/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are amended.
Claims 1-8 (claim set filed 08/13/2025) are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawal of Rejections
The response and amendment filed on 08/13/2025 are acknowledged. All of the amendment and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered.
For the purposes of clarity of the record, the reasons for the Examiner's withdrawal and/or maintaining if applicable, of the substantive or essential claim rejections are detailed directly below and/or in the Examiner's response to arguments section.
The previous claims 1-8 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn necessitated by submission of biological deposit statement including viability statement and availability statement (filed 08/13/2025).
The previous claims 1 and 8 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn necessitated amendment of claims 1 and 8.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites steps of incubating a raw material, centrifuging the broth and adding ice cold methanol to the supernatant. Applicant is suggested to add comma after the first step: “… to obtain a broth, centrifuging the broth …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained/Modified Rejections
The following rejections are maintained and/or modified taking into consideration amendment to claim 1 filed on 08/13/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh (Hsueh et al. Int. J. Molec. Sci., 2017, 18, 2644, 1-20 on record in IDS) in view of Ju (Ju et al. Biotechnol. Lett., 2014, 36, 2319-2324) and Kreyenschulte (Kreyenschulte et al. Crit. Review Biotechnol., 2014, 34, 1-15).
Regarding claim 1, Hsueh teaches synthesis of poly-gamma-glutamic acid (PGA) by bacteria including Bacillus species, mechanisms of synthesis and gene regulation, applications of PGA and genetic modifications of bacterial strains to produce high level of PGA (Abstract). Hsueh describes that PGA is produced mainly by gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus Bacillus, including B. subtilis, and B. licheniformis (p. 2, last paragraph). Hsueh mentions the molecular weight of PGA between 10 and 1000 kDa (p. 1, 1st paragraph). Hsueh describes genes involved in PDA synthesis and performs phylogenetic analysis based on these genes. Hsueh discloses the conservation of the following genes: “conservation of genes decreased in the following order: pgsC > pgdS > pgsE > pgsA > pgsB” and mentions that: “pgsC is important for γ-PGA synthesis, and thus, it is difficult to modify or replace it, but pgsB, pgsA, and pgsE can vary or be replaced without affecting γ -PGA synthesis” (p. 7, last paragraph). Hsueh describes that B. paralicheniformis has 4 of these genes (pgsC, pgsA, pgsB, pgdS) indicating that B. paralicheniformis strains can synthesize PGA (p. 9, Figure 8). Hsueh describes multiple recombinant strains of Bacillus genus generated for increased PGA production (p. 10, Table 2) with the yields covering the claimed limitation for yield. For instance, B. licheniformis NCIM 2324 was shown to provide maximal yield of 98.64 g/l in the presence of glutamic acid and citric acid (p. 14, 1st paragraph). Tables 2 and 3 provide ingredients of the fermentation medium including all the clamed components, i.e. glucose or sucrose as carbon source, glutamic acid, citric acid and ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride as nitrogen sources and natural sources such as starch, yeast extract and molasses. Hsueh describes fermentation parameters in Table 3, including temperature and pH, corresponding to claimed limitations.
Hsueh does not teach specific concentrations of the components of the broth during PGA synthesis and time of fermentation and does not teach obtaining PGA from the broth with the ice cold methanol treatment.
Regarding claim 1, Ju teaches enhanced production of PGA by Bacillus subtilis MJ80 strain isolated from soil samples (Abstract). Ju describes optimization of fermentation conditions and reaching productivity of 75.5 g/l in 3 days (Abstract) and production of high molecular weight PGA in the range of 500-1500 kDa (p. 2323, left column, last paragraph). In the optimized conditions the fermentation media contained: 20 g/l starch and 80 g/l glycerol as carbon sources; 70 g/l glutamic acid; 7 g/l urea as nitrogen source and 12 g/l citric acid (p. 2322 right column, last paragraph) that corresponds to 10% carbon, 7% glutamic acid, 0.7% nitrogen and 1.2% citric acid. Thus, carbon and nitrogen sources and glutamic acid in Ju teaching are used at the claimed concentrations. Concentrations of citric acid is close to claimed parameters. It is noted that "where 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" (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
The fermentation in Ju teaching was performed at pH 7.0, 37° C for 3 days (p. 2322 right column, last paragraph) and the inoculum used was 107 viable bacteria/ml (p. 2320, left column, 3rd paragraph). Figure 5 (p. 2323) demonstrates that significant yield about 50 g/l PGA is already obtained after 2 days or 48 hours of incubation and thus conditions for fermentation cover the claimed parameters except the amount of bacteria used.
Ju teaches centrifugation of the fermentation broth at 6,000 x g for 20 min to separate cells and collect supernatant and precipitation of PGA with cold ethanol (p. 2320, right column, 2nd paragraph).
Kreyenschulte teaches different alcohols for PGA precipitation. Kreyenschulte discloses that alcohol induced precipitation is the most common method of PGA recovery and that cold methanol, ethanol, 2-propanol were used (p. 7, left column, 2nd paragraph). Kreyenschulte describes that: “The addition of alcohol reduces the water activity leading to a precipitation of the polymer molecules, which can then be separated from the supernatant…” (p. 7, left column, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, ethanol in Ju teaching can be substituted with methanol as taught by Kreyenschulte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte and use ingredients and conditions for fermentation during synthesis of PGA from Ju teaching and method of recovery of PGA by alcohol (methanol or ethanol) precipitation from Ju and Kreyenschulte teachings and use Bacillus strains, including strains of Bacillus paralicheniformis, as described in Hsueh teaching. One would have been motivated to do so since Hsueh teaches multiple Bacillus species producing PGA and strains genetically modified for enhanced production and Je describes optimized conditions for fermentation providing 75.5 g/l yield of PGA and Kreyenschulte teaches functional equivalence of ethanol and methanol for PGA precipitation. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination because Hsueh and Ju teach production of PGA by Bacillus strains and Ju and Kreyenschulte teach alcohol precipitation of PGA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that instant Bacillus paralicheniformis MCC 0196 is the same or an obvious variant of Bacillus paralicheniformis strains of Hsueh teaching that can perform the same function of PGA synthesis. One would have been motivated to use Bacillus paralicheniformis strains for PGA synthesis with reasonably expected success since Hsueh showed presence of several genes necessary for PGA synthesis in the genome of Bacillus paralicheniformis strains. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, if the strain is not the same, the use of an obvious variant of Bacillus paralicheniformis with the same function and used for the same purpose is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that parameters of fermentation during PGA synthesis are the result effective variables that can be optimized. One would have been motivated to optimize the concentrations of ingredients during PGA synthesis to achieve higher yield of PGA and increase the amount of bacteria to reduce time of fermentation. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this optimization because selection of the conditions of fermentation are routine and conventional. Thus, Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte teachings render claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claims 3-5, Hsueh teaches different carbon sources, including glucose and sucrose, different nitrogen sources, such as yeast extract as organic source and ammonium sulfate or ammonium chloride as inorganic sources (Tables 2 and 3). Hsueh discloses glutamic acid and citric acid as fermentation broth ingredients and sources of potassium (KH2PO4), magnesium (MgSO4), calcium (CaCl2) and iron (FeCl3) (Table 2). Thus, Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte teachings render claims 3-5 obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Ju teaches the optimized composition of the fermentation media to contain 0.5% NH4Cl, 0.05% K2PO4, 0.025% MgSO4x7H2O, 0.015% CaCl2 and 0.004% FeCl3 (p. 2322 right column, last paragraph) that corresponds to 5 g/l NH4Cl, 0.5g/l K2PO4, 0.25g/l MgSO4x7H2O, 0.15 g/l CaCl2 and 0.04 g/l FeCl3. Thus, Ju teaching contains the claimed ingredients concentrations of which are close to claimed parameters.
The fermentation in Ju teaching was performed at pH 7.0, 37° C for 3 days (p. 2322 right column, last paragraph) and the inoculum used was 107 viable bacteria/ml (p. 2320, left column, 3rd paragraph). Figure 5 (p. 2323) demonstrates that significant yield about 50 g/l PGA is obtained in less than 3 days of incubation. Hsueh teaches different fermentation conditions including fermentation at pH 7.5 and at temperature as low as 30° C (Table 3). Thus, conditions for fermentation in Ju and Hsueh teachings cover the claimed parameters except amount of bacteria and temperature and time of fermentation. It is noted that "where 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" (See MPEP 2144.05 II).
Ju teaches centrifugation of the fermentation broth at 6,000 x g for 20 min to separate cells and collect supernatant followed by acid treatment, centrifugation at 10,000 x g for 20 min and precipitation of PGA with cold ethanol (p. 2320, right column, 2nd paragraph). Alcohol precipitation of PGA was discussed above in claim 1. The difference of Ju teaching for PGA precipitation is 20 min centrifugation compared to claimed 30 min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that parameters of fermentation and PGA precipitation are the result effective variables that can be optimized. One would have been motivated to optimize the concentrations of ingredients and temperature of fermentation to achieve higher yield of PGA, to increase the amount of bacteria to reduce time of fermentation and increase time of centrifugation during PGA precipitation to achieve complete separation of components. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this optimization because selection of the conditions of fermentation and centrifugation time are routine and conventional. Thus, Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte teachings render claim 8 obvious.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh (Hsueh et al. Int. J. Molec. Sci., 2017, 18, 2644, 1-20 on record in IDS) in view of Ju (Ju et al. Biotechnol. Lett., 2014, 36, 2319-2324) and Kreyenschulte (Kreyenschulte et al. Crit. Review Biotechnol., 2014, 34, 1-15) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopez (Lopez and Alippi J. Microbiol. Methods, 2019, 165, 105690, 1-11).
Teachings of Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte have been set forth above.
Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte do not teach B. paralicheniformis isolated from honey.
Lopez teaches multiple aerobic spore-forming bacteria isolated from honey with most of them belonging to Bacillus genus (p. 1, 2nd paragraph). Lopez mentions that some bacterial groups are closely related and discloses a method for rapid differentiation of isolates based on PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene and restriction analysis (Abstract). Lopez describes differentiation between 80 isolates belonging to 26 species reported in honey and other apiarian sources (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Lopez teaching and use Bacillus strains from honey in the process of PGA synthesis based on Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte teachings. One would have been motivated to do so since Hsueh teaches multiple Bacillus species producing PGA and Lopez provides method for identification of Bacillus species from honey and reports differentiation of 80 isolates from honey and other apiarian sources. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination because Hsueh, Ju and Lopaz teach Bacillus species and Hsueh and Ju teach production of PGA by Bacillus strains and Lopaz provides honey as the source for novel Bacillus strains. Thus, Hsueh, Ju, Kreyenschulte and Lopez teachings render claim 2 obvious.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh (Hsueh et al. Int. J. Molec. Sci., 2017, 18, 2644, 1-20 on record in IDS) in view of Ju (Ju et al. Biotechnol. Lett., 2014, 36, 2319-2324) and Kreyenschulte (Kreyenschulte et al. Crit. Review Biotechnol., 2014, 34, 1-15) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hijosa-Valsero (Hijosa-Valsero et al. BioEnergy Research, 2019, 12, 1000-1011) as evidenced by Missio (Missio et al. Scientia Agricola, 2015, 72, 314- 321).
Teachings of Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte have been set forth above. Hsueh teaches that B. licheniformis NCIM 2324 was shown to provide maximal yield of 98.64 g/l in the presence of glutamic acid and citric acid (p. 14, 1st paragraph).
However, Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte do not teach tomato waste as natural source of carbon, nitrogen, glutamic acid and citric acid.
Hijosa-Valsero teaches application of tomato waste to bioethanol production by twelve different yeast and bacterial strains (Abstract). Hijosa-Valsero describes composition of tomato pomace, a solid waste generated during processing of tomatoes to obtain tomato juice, paste, sauce, puree or ketchup (p. 1001, right column, 1st paragraph). Hijosa-Valsero discloses presence of carbon source such as starch, cellulose, simple sugars and nitrogen source, such as proteins in tomato waste: “The chemical composition of tomato pomace is variable depending on the sample analyzed, but it is normally in the range of 10–18% starch, 27–32% cellulose, 5–18% hemicellulose, 11–26% simple sugars, 7.6% pectin, 31% lignin, 12– 23% protein, 5–20% fat and 4–6% ash” (p. 1001, right column, 1st paragraph). Additionally, Hijosa-Valsero mentions presence in tomato waste of potassium, magnesium, calcium and iron: “Tomato waste contains important amounts of Ca, K (~ 7–11 g/kg), Mg, Na and P (~ 2–3 g/kg), and lower amounts of Fe, Mn and Cu (15–30 mg/kg)” (p. 1001, right column, 1st paragraph). Besides nutrients mentioned by Hijosa-Valsero, tomatoes contain glutamic acid and citric acid as evidenced by Missio. Missio teaches chemical changes in sugar-acid profile of tomatoes during storage and describes presence of glutamic acid and citric acid in tomatoes and mentions some reduction in citric acid and increase in glutamic acid during storage (Abstract, Figure 3). Therefore, tomato waste contains all the necessary ingredients to be used for synthesis of PGA by fermentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tomato waste as a raw material as described by Hijosa-Valsero for the synthesis of PGA based on Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte teachings. One would have been motivated to do so since tomato waste contains the necessary ingredients for synthesis of PGA as taught by Hsueh and Ju and Hijosa-Valsero showed application of tomato waste for bioethanol production. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that because Hsueh, Ju and Kreyenschulte provide method of production of PGA by Bacillus strains and Hijosa-Valsero provides source of fermentation medium containing necessary nutrients as further evidenced by Missio who teaches citric acid and glutamic acid are inherent components in tomato waste. Thus, Hsueh, Ju, Kreyenschulte and Hijosa- Valsero teachings as evidenced by Missio render claims 6 and 7 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (addressing p. 7 of the Remarks) unexpected high yield of γ-PGA and refers to Examples 4, 10, 11 and 18. In particular, Examples 10 and 11 describe yield of 40 g/l obtained using tomato waste and Example 18 describes the maximum yield of 284 g/l under non-sterile fermentation with 50% sucrose. Applicant states that: “the presently claimed process provides the highest γ-PGA production obtained to date in batch fermentation process. This high yield is contrasted with methods reported in the literature that yield much lower amounts of γ-PGA. “. These arguments are not persuasive because:
Hsueh teaches the yields γ-PGA production by different Bacillus strains that exceed 40 g/l (p. 12-13, Table 3). For instance, for batch fermentation B. licheniformis NCIM 2324 was shown to provide maximal yield of 98.64 g/l in the presence of glutamic acid and citric acid (p. 14, 1st paragraph) and B. subtilis NX-2 provides 107.7 g/l of γ-PGA with fermentation of natural substrates (Table 3). Therefore, the 40 g/l yield is not an unexpected result. Regarding the yield reported in Example 18, i.e. 284 g/l, that high yield does not make the prior art non-obvious because the prior art does not need to point out all advantages if there is a motivation to combine the prior art. MPEP 2145: “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 instant case, Hsueh teaches multiple Bacillus species producing γ-PGA including strains of Bacillus paralicheniformis, Je describes optimized conditions for fermentation providing 75.5 g/l yield of γ-PGA (Abstract) and Kreyenschulte teaches functional equivalence of ethanol and methanol for γ-PGA precipitation (p. 7, left column, 2nd paragraph as described above providing motivation for their combination.
Assuming arguendo applicant has shown unexpected data, claims are not commensurate in scope with the unexpected results. MPEP 716.02: “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In instant case, Example 18 describing yield of 284 g/l of γ-PGA is based on very specific concentrations including concentrations of carbon (30-50%), glutamic acid (7%), citric acid (1%) and nitrogen (1.5% of ammonium nitrate). Concentrations of carbon, glutamic acid and citric acid are recited in claim 1, however, they have a broader range and concentration of nitrogen in claim 1 is within 0 to 1% and in claim 8 – 0.6% (NH4Cl) that is different from 1.5% in Example 18. Additionally, medium in Example 18 has sucrose as a carbon source and the carbon source in the claims is not limited to sucrose. Thus, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the unexpected results.
Applicant argues (addressing p. 7-8 of the Remarks) that the claimed process enables a high yield in non-sterile fermentation which translates into lower production cost. Applicant further argues that: “The γ-PGA produced from tomato waste shows a clean NMR spectrum indicating high purity comparable to standard γ-PGA. “. These arguments are not persuasive because:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-sterile fermentation and high purity of γ-PGA) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant arguments (addressing p. 8-9 of the Remarks) that Hsueh does not teach B. paralincheniformis MCC 0196 strain in the medium with claimed components and concentrations to obtain high yield of γ-PGA with high purity in non-sterile conditions and that Ju does not teach the claimed unexpected yield of 300 g/l under high sucrose condition, these arguments are not persuasive, because:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is acknowledged that there is not a single reference that teaches and/or suggests every claim limitation recited in instant claim 1. However, Applicants are respectfully reminded that the rejections supra are based on obviousness. Pursuant to MPEP 2142, 35 USC 103 authorizes a rejection where, to meet the claim, it is necessary to modify a single reference or to combine it with one or more other references. Since the rejection is based on obviousness, it is unnecessary for every claim limitation to be taught and/or suggested by a single reference. Additionally, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In instant case, one would have been motivated to combine Hsueh providing guidance to consider B. paralicheniformis strain for synthesis of γ-PGA since it contains several genes necessary for γ-PGA synthesis (p. 9, Figure 8) and hence can be an obvious variant of instant strain and Je teaching optimized conditions for enhanced γ-PGA production (p. 7, left column, 2nd paragraph) with reasonably expected success since Hsueh and Je teach synthesis of γ-PGA by Bacillus species. The arguments regarding high yields, high purity and non-sterile conditions were discussed above.
In response to Applicant arguments (addressing p. 9-10 of the Remarks) that Ju procedure of γ-PGA recovery involving pH adjustment with acid, storage, centrifugation and precipitation with cold ethanol, “differs materially from the presently claimed method, which employs a single centrifugation and precipitation using ice-cold methanol” and Kreyenschulte does not teach or reasonably suggest employing ice cold methanol as a preferred choice, these arguments are not persuasive because:
The claimed method steps are recited with the transitional phrase “comprises” and hence do not exclude additional steps such as pH adjustment and storage prior to γ-PGA precipitation with cold ethanol as taught by Ju. Kreyenschulte teaches alcohol induced precipitation as the most common method of γ-PGA recovery and refers to cold methanol, ethanol or 2-propanol (p. 7, left column, 2nd paragraph). One would have been motivated with reasonably expected success to try using cold ethanol or methanol and select the alcohol providing better recovery of γ-PGA since it is within the skills of the artisan in the field to select optimal reagent for specific purpose.
In response to Applicant arguments (addressing p. 10 of the Remarks) that: “While Lopez identifies B. paralicheniformis among these isolates, it does not disclose, suggest, or provide any basis for the screening of any of the strains for γ-PGA production. A person having ordinary skill in art would not consider Lopez, as this document is irrelevant in the context of γ-PGA production” and that: “Neither Hijosa-Valsero nor Missio addresses γ-PGA synthesis, these arguments are not persuasive because:
Although Lopez, Hijosa-Valsero and Missio do not teach γ-PGA synthesis, Lopez provides honey as a source of Bacillus species and describes methods of their identification (Abstract) and a specific strain can be selected for γ-PGA synthesis from the identified species as taught by Hsueh. Hijosa-Valsero teaches tomato waste for bioproduction and describes that raw material to contain carbon source, nitrogen source, potassium, magnesium, calcium and iron and Missio provides evidence of the presence of glutamic acid and citric acid in tomatoes (Abstract). That provides motivation to use tomato waste as a raw material for γ-PGA synthesis since tomatoes contain all the necessary ingredients for γ-PGA synthesis as taught by Hsueh and Ju.
Based on the discussed above the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained and modified necessitated by amendment of claims.
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 LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00-5:30.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/L.G.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1653 /SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights