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
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn. Claim 18 is cancelled.
Claims 1-10 are under examination herein.
The rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of the claim amendment deleting the exemplary language “in particular” from claims 7-8 and deleting the parenthetical phrase “(Dhaps-1)” in claim 9.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/067473 filed 6/25/2021 which claims priority to EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO) 20182382.0 filed 6/25/2020. The effective filing date of the instant application is June 25, 2020.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (“Biotechnological production of erythritol and its applications”, Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 86, pp.1017-1025; previously cited) in view of Vélëz et al. (“Mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata”, Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2007, Vol. 44, pp.258-268; previously cited) and Hattori et al. (“Large Scale Production of Erythritol and Its Conversion to D-Mannitol Production by n- Alkane-grown Candida zeylanoides”, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974, Vol.38, Issue 6, pp.1203-1208; previously cited). The rejection of claim 1 is further evidenced by Dai et al. (“Recent advanced in the applications and biotechnological production of mannitol”, Journal of Functional Foods, 2017, Vol. 36, pp.404 – 409; previously cited) and Taveira et al. (“Structural and biochemical insights of xylose MFS and SWEET transporters in microbial cell factories: challenges to lignocellulosic hydrolysates fermentation”, Frontiers in Microbiology, 2024, Vol. 15, article 1452240, 24 pages).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches polyols include sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol and erythritol (p.1017, 2nd column 1st paragraph). Moon further teaches that erythritol is produced by microbial methods mostly using osmophilic yeasts and serves as an inexpensive starting material for the production of other sugars (abstract). Moon teaches that yeast produce erythritol using erythrose reductase (p.1019, Figure 1). Moon further teaches that “mutagenized” derivatives reach over 40% yields of erythritol (p.1018, 2nd column 1st paragraph). Moon teaches erythritol has been produced commercially using mutant strains of Aureobasidium sp. and Pseudozyma tsukubaensis (abstract). Moon teaches that the synthesis of erythritol via the pentose phosphate pathway is favored by growth under glycolytic rather than gluconeogenic condition in Aspergillus nidulans (p.1019, 1st column top paragraph).
Moon is silent on at least one gene encoding at least one membrane-bound alditol transporter. However, as evidenced by Taveira et al., Major Facilitator Superfamily (MFS) transporters exist in different species, including filamentous fungus as STP1 (p.3, Figure 1). Taveira further identifies that particular motifs are conserved in different species such as filamentous fungi, yeasts and bacteria (p.6, 1st column last paragraph – top of 2nd column; Figure 3A). Thus, the yeast of Moon inherently comprise at least one membrane-bound alditol transporter.
Moon is silent on at least one inactivated gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase.
Vélëz teaches mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata (title). As evidenced by Dai, mannitol is considered an alditol or polyol that can be produced by several microorganisms (abstract). Vélëz teaches using targeted gene disruption to create mutants deficient in mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase (abstract). Vélëz further teaches that the mutants grew very poorly with mannitol as the carbon source (abstract).
Hattori teaches that in Candida zeylanoides KY6166, erythritol production can be entirely converted to mannitol production (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the yeast of Moon to create a mutant deficient in mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hattori teaches that erythritol production can be converted to mannitol conversion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to inactivate mannitol 1- phosphate 5-dehydrogenase to prevent the microorganism from being able to use mannitol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mutant strain taught by Moon to select a fungus from the genus Aspergillus to arrive at the claimed invention. Each of Aureobasidium, Pseudozyma, and Aspergillus are genera of fungi. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that replacing one known genus of fungi with another would predictably result in a genetically modified saprotroph, because it was known in the art at the time of invention that erythritol could be produced using filamentous fungi selected from the genus Aspergillus.
Regarding claim 2, Moon teaches that erythritol is produced by microbial methods mostly using osmophilic yeasts and has been produced commercially using Aureobasidium sp. and Pseudozyma tsukubaensis (abstract).
Moon teaches that the synthesis of erythritol via the pentose phosphate pathway is favored by growth under glycolytic rather than gluconeogenic condition in Aspergillus nidulans (p.1019, 1st column top paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mutant strain taught by Moon to select a fungus from the genus Aspergillus to arrive at the claimed invention. Each of Aureobasidium, Pseudozyma, and Aspergillus are genera of fungi. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that replacing one known genus of fungi with another would predictably result in a genetically modified saprotroph, because it was known in the art at the time of invention that erythritol could be produced using filamentous fungi selected from the genus Aspergillus.
Regarding claim 10, Moon teaches that supplementation with Cu2+ in cultures of T. corallina reduced the production of fumarate, a strong inhibitor of erythrose reductase. Hence, erythrose reductase activity became less inhibited and a high yield of erythritol was produced (relevant to wherein the at least one gene encoding the at least one erythrose reductase is overexpressed) (p.1022, 2nd column 1st paragraph).
Claims 3 and 5 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (“Biotechnological production of erythritol and its applications”, Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 86, pp.1017-1025; previously cited) in view of Vélëz et al. (“Mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata”, Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2007, Vol. 44, pp.258-268; previously cited) and Hattori et al. (“Large Scale Production of Erythritol and Its Conversion to D-Mannitol Production by n- Alkane-grown Candida zeylanoides”, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974, Vol.38, Issue 6, pp.1203-1208; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jovanović et al. (“Erythritol production on wheat straw using Trichoderma reesei”, AMB Express, 2014, Vol. 4, article 34; 12 pages).
The teachings of Moon et al., Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Moon, Vélëz and Hattori do not teach the saprotroph is Hypocrea jecorina (Trichoderma reesei).
However, Jovanović teaches erythritol production on wheat straw using Trichoderma reesei (title). Jovanović teaches biotechnical production of erythritol using osmophilic yeasts like Aureobasidium sp., Trichosporonoides sp., Torula sp., and Candida magnoliae (p.1, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the mutant Aureobasidium strain taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. with Trichoderma reesei taught by Jovanović to arrive at the claimed invention. Jovanović teaches the biotechnical production of erythritol using osmophilic yeasts like Aureobasidium sp. and Trichoderma reesei. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that replacing one known fungal species with another would predictably result in a genetically modified host that could produce erythritol, because Jovanović teaches that each of these species can be used to produce erythritol, and it was known in the art at the time of invention that Trichoderma reesei could be used to produce erythritol.
Regarding claim 5, Moon teaches erythrose reductase converts erythrose to erythritol in yeast (p.1019, Fig. 1).
Moon, Vélëz and Hattori are silent on whether the at least one gene encoding at least one erythrose reductase is err1.
However, Jovanović teaches erythritol production on wheat straw using Trichoderma reesei (title). Jovanović teaches overexpressing the err1 gene in Trichoderma reesei wild-type and cellulase hyperproducing, carbon catabolite depressed strain Rut-C30 strains to produce erythritol with T. reesei (abstract). Jovanović further teaches err1 overexpression in Rut-C30 led to clearly higher erythritol formation on wheat straw (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. to select an erythrose reductase encoded by gene err1 taught by Jovanović to arrive at the claimed invention. Each of Moon, Vélëz, Hattori and Jovanović teach genetically modified fungi. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that replacing one known erythrose reductase with another would predictably result in a genetically modified organism comprising at least one erythrose reductase encoded by err1, because it was known in the art at the time of invention that gene err1 encoded an erythrose reductase.
Claim 4 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (“Biotechnological production of erythritol and its applications”, Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 86, pp.1017-1025; previously cited) in view of Vélëz et al. (“Mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata”, Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2007, Vol. 44, pp.258-268; previously cited) and Hattori et al. (“Large Scale Production of Erythritol and Its Conversion to D-Mannitol Production by n- Alkane-grown Candida zeylanoides”, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974, Vol.38, Issue 6, pp.1203-1208; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sabir et al. (“Functional relevance of water and glycerol channels in Saccharomyces cerevisiae” FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2017, Vol. 364, No.9, article fnx080, 7 pages; previously cited) and Teixeira et al. (“Genome-Wide Identification of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genes Required for Maximal Tolerance to Ethanol”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Sept. 2009, Vol. 75, No. 18, pp.5761-5772; previously cited).
The teachings of Moon et al., Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Moon, Vélëz and Hattori are silent on whether the at least one gene encoding at least one membrane-bound alditol transporter is fps1.
However, Sabir teaches aquaporins have been identified in almost all living forms, from bacteria to plants and animals (p.1, 1st column). Sabir teaches that in the genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, four aquaporin-homolog ORFs were identified, with the ORF FPS1 being more closely related to aquaglyceroporins (p.1, 2nd column). Sabir further teaches that Fps1 proteins were localized in the plasma membrane of yeast cells (i.e. membrane-bound) (p1, 2nd column).
Teixeira teaches identification of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes, and teaches the FPS1 gene encoding a plasma membrane aquaglyceroporin which mediates controlled glycerol efflux (abstract). Teixeira teaches that aquaglyceroporins facilitate transmembrane transport of small uncharged molecules like polyols and urea, which play important roles in osmoregulation and nutrient uptake (p.5762, 1st column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. to select a membrane-bound alditol transporter encoded by gene fps1 taught by Sabir and Teixeira to arrive at the claimed invention. Each of Moon, Vélëz, Hattori, Sabir and Teixeira teach genetically modified fungi. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that replacing one known membrane-bound alditol transporter gene sequence with another using methods well-known in the art would predictably result a genetically modified organism comprising at least one gene encoding at least one membrane-bound alditol transporter encoded by fps1, because it was known in the art at the time of invention that the gene fps1 from Saccharomyces cerevisiae encoded a membrane-bound alditol transporter.
Claim 6 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (“Biotechnological production of erythritol and its applications”, Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 86, pp.1017-1025; previously cited) in view of Vélëz et al. (“Mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata”, Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2007, Vol. 44, pp.258-268; previously cited) and Hattori et al. (“Large Scale Production of Erythritol and Its Conversion to D-Mannitol Production by n- Alkane-grown Candida zeylanoides”, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974, Vol.38, Issue 6, pp.1203-1208; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the GenBank reference corresponding to accession number PTB77078, deposited on April 2, 2018 and referred to as GenBank 01 (previously cited).
The teachings of Moon et al., Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Vélëz teaches targeted gene disruption of mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase to create mutants deficient in mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase (abstract).
Moon, Vélëz and Hattori are silent on whether the at least one gene encoding the at least one mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase is mpdh.
However, GenBank 01 teaches an NAD(P)-binding protein from Trichoderma longibrachiatum ATCC 18648 that is identified as a mannitol-1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. to select a mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase encoded by gene mpdh taught by GenBank to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that selecting the mpdh gene taught by GenBank as the mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase gene sequence in the genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. would predictably result in a genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans comprising at least one inactivated gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase, because it was known in the art at the time of invention that mpdh gene encodes a mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase.
Claims 7 and 8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (“Biotechnological production of erythritol and its applications”, Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 86, pp.1017-1025; previously cited) in view of Vélëz et al. (“Mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata”, Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2007, Vol. 44, pp.258-268; previously cited) and Hattori et al. (“Large Scale Production of Erythritol and Its Conversion to D-Mannitol Production by n- Alkane-grown Candida zeylanoides”, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974, Vol.38, Issue 6, pp.1203-1208; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walfridsson et al. (“Xylose-Metabolizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains Overexpressing the TKL1 and TAL1 Genes Encoding the Pentose Phosphate Pathway Enzymes Transketolase and Transaldolase”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1995, Vol. 61, No.12, pp.4184-4190; previously cited).
The teachings of Moon et al., Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Moon, Vélëz and Hattori are silent as a genetically modified saprotroph further comprising at least one gene encoding at least one transketolase (claim 7) and a genetically modified saprotroph further comprising at least one gene encoding at least one transaldolase (claim 8).
However, Walfridsson teaches xylose-metabolizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains overexpressing the TKL1 and TAL1 genes encoding transketolase and transaldolase (title). Walfridsson teaches that depending on the origin of lignocellulose, the dominant pentose sugar is xylose (p.4184, 1st column 1st paragraph). Walfridsson teaches growth of the transformants on xylose plates was significantly improved when both TKL and TAL were overproduced (p.4186, 1st column, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. to further comprise at least one transketolase encoded by tkl1 or at least one transaldolase encoded by tal1, because Walfridsson teaches that growth of the transformants on xylose plates was significantly improved when TKL and TAL were overproduced. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to genetically modify the strain to include at least one transketolase or at least one transaldolase to allow better growth on xylose plates.
Claim 9 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (“Biotechnological production of erythritol and its applications”, Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2010, Vol. 86, pp.1017-1025; previously cited) in view of Vélëz et al. (“Mannitol metabolism in the phytopathogenic fungus Alternaria alternata”, Fungal Genetics and Biology, 2007, Vol. 44, pp.258-268; previously cited) and Hattori et al. (“Large Scale Production of Erythritol and Its Conversion to D-Mannitol Production by n- Alkane-grown Candida zeylanoides”, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974, Vol.38, Issue 6, pp.1203-1208; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the GenBank reference corresponding to accession number XP018149724, deposited on September 8, 2017, referred to as GenBank 02 (previously cited), and DAHP Synthase article from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAHP_synthase, available November 20, 2016; previously cited).
The teachings of Moon et al., Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Moon, Vélëz and Hattori do not teach a saprotroph further comprising at least one inactivated gene encoding phospho-2-dehydro-3-deoxyheptonate aldolase 1.
GenBank 02 teaches a phosph-2-dehydro-3-dexoyheptonate aldolase from Pochonia chlamydosporia). GenBank teaches that the function is amino acid transport and metabolism.
Wikipedia teaches that phospho-2-dehydro-3-deoxyheptonate aldolase 1, a synonym for 3-deoxy-D-arabinoheptulosonate 7-phosphate (DAHP) synthase, is the first enzyme that acts in the Shikimate Pathway (Biological function – 1st paragraph). Wikipedia further suggests that one biological function of phospho-2-dehydro-3-deoxyheptonate aldolase 1 is to regulate the amount of carbon that enters the shikimate pathway (Biological function – 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the genetically modified mutant strain of Aspergillus nidulans taught by Moon in view of Vélëz et al. and Hattori et al. to further comprise an inactivated gene encoding phospho-2-dehydro-3-deoxyheptonate aldolase 1 taught by GenBank 02. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that inactivating the phospho-2-dehydro-3-deoxyheptonate aldolase 1 gene that is known to control the amount of carbon entering a pathway would predictably result in a mutant organism that is able to utilize carbon and increase metabolism more rapidly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant summarizes the current outstanding rejections and argues that Moon, Velez, Hattori, Dai, Taveira, Jovanovic, Sabir, Texeira, Walfridsson, GenBank 01, GenBank 02 and Wikipedia fail to disclose a filamentous fungus of the genera Hypocrea, Gibberella, Aspergillus and Penicillium which is genetically modified by comprising at least one inactivated gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.7, 1st paragraph). Applicant argues that the office action states on page 7 that “Moon is silent on at least one inactivated gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase”, and thus Moon fails to teach or suggest the above noted features of amended independent claim 1 (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.7 2nd paragraph).
Applicant argues that Vélëz teaches mutant strains from species Alternaria alternata and are therefore not filamentous fungi of the genera Hypocrea, Gibberella, Aspergillus and Penicillium as specified in amended claim 1; nor does Vélëz mention or suggest that such inactivation of a gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase has any influence on the synthesis of erythritol and thus Vélëz fails to teach or suggest the above-noted features of amended independent claim 1 (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.7 last paragraph – top of p.8).
Applicant argues that Hattori discloses a study using the mutant strain Candida zeylanoides KY 6166 and thus also does not involve a filamentous fungus of the genera Hypocrea, Gibberella, Aspergillus or Penicillium (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.8 1st paragraph). Applicant argues that Hattori demonstrates that pH value below 4 leads to a sharp increase in erythritol production and pH above 5 led to reduced erythritol and increased citric acid production (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.8 1st paragraph). Applicant further argues that Hattori teaches that erythritol and mannitol production also depended upon phosphate concentration in the culture medium; thus based on the teaching of Hattori, a skilled person would be motivated to adjust the pH value and/or phosphate concentration to obtain the highest possible yield of erythritol (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.8 2nd paragraph). Applicant argues there is no indication in Hattori that a specific genetic modification of the strain, in particular an inactivation of a gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase has an influence on the yield of erythritol in a filamentous fungus of the genera Hypocrea, Gibberella, Aspergillus or Penicillium (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.8 last paragraph). Applicant argues that Hattori concludes that the results obtained for one strain or species cannot simply be transferred to other strains and other species, and therefore it is completely absurd to conclude from the teachings of the cited prior art that all fungi of different genera behave in the same way, in particular because none of the cited prior art teaches or at least suggests a connection between the inactivation of a gene that codes for mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase and erythritol production (See Remarks dated 12/11/2025, p.9, 2nd paragraph).
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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).
The instant claims are directed towards a product, a genetically modified saprotroph comprising 3 elements: (1) at least one gene encoding one membrane-bound alditol transporter; (2) at least one gene encoding at least one erythrose reductase; and (3) at least one inactivated gene encoding mannitol 1-phosphate 5 dehydrogenase, wherein the saprotroph is a filamentous fungus selected from the genera Hypocrea, Gibberella, Aspergillus and Penicillium. As discussed in the rejection above, Moon teaches a mutagenized yeast producing erythritol using erythrose reductase. Moon further teaches that the synthesis of erythritol via the pentose phosphate pathway is favored by growth under glycolytic rather than gluconeogenic condition in Aspergillus nidulans, i.e. a filamentous fungus from the genus Aspergillus. Vélëz teaches using targeted gene disruption to create mutants deficient in mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase. Hattori teaches that erythritol production can be entirely converted to mannitol production. Thus, Moon in view of Vélëz and Hattori teach all the required elements of the instantly claimed product.
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., erythritol production; or the influence or effect of inactivation of a gene that codes for mannitol 1-phosphate 5-dehydrogenase on erythritol production) 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA MISHRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 3:30pm 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, Louise W. Humphrey can be reached at (571) 272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/DEEPA MISHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1657