DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10-25 are pending.
The amendment filed on 11/06/2025, amending claims 1, 6, 13-15, adding claims 19-25 and cancelling claims 2,4-5, 7 and 9 is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The examination of this case has been assigned to a different examiner in Group Art Unit 1652.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2021/008262 filed on 06/30/2021 and claims foreign priority to KR 10-2020-0115570, filed on 09/09/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copy of English language translation of KR 10-2020-0115570.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The previously rejected claims 1-18 have been amended; Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-18 remain rejected and new claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The prior rejection of claims 2,4-5,7 and 9 are rendered moot by the amendment.
Claims 1, 3, 12-14 as amended are directed in part to a recombinant Corynebacterium glutamicum in which a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein which encodes any variant of SEQ ID NO:1 is introduced, and in which activity of OdhA protein is weakened by any means, and wherein the recombinant microorganism has an improved ability to produce L- glutamic acid compared with a parent strain before introducing an SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein, and wherein the sodium dependent SbtA protein is derived from the genus Synechocystis.
Claims 1, 3, 12-14 require a polynucleotide encoding any variant of the protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 because the term “SbtA” does not provide any particular structure or function and the term “derived” does not limit the protein to a naturally occurring protein from the genus Synechocystis. The claims encompass “weakening” an endogenous protein by any means because “weakened” is a functional description that can encompass multiple different alterations within different degrees of effect.
Claims 6, 8, 10-11 as amended are directed in part to a method for producing L-glutamic acid, the method comprising culturing, in a medium, a recombinant microorganism of the genus Corynebacterium glutamicum producing L-glutamic acid, in which a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the sodium dependent SbtA protein which encodes any variant of SEQ ID NO:1 is introduced, and wherein the recombinant microorganism has an improved ability to produce L-glutamic acid compared with a parent strain before introducing a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the sodium dependent SbtA protein, and wherein the sodium dependent SbtA protein is derived from the genus Synechocystis.
Claims 6, 8, 10-11 require a polynucleotide encoding any variant of the protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 because the term “SbtA” does not provide any particular structure or function and the term “derived” does not limit the protein to a naturally occurring protein from the genus Synechocystis.
Claims 15-18 as amended are directed in part to a method for improving L-glutamic acid production comprising introducing a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein into a microorganism of the genus Corynebacterium glutamicum, and wherein the sodium dependent SbtA protein is derived from the genus Synechocystis; and culturing the microorganism in a medium.
Claims 15-18 require a polynucleotide encoding any variant of the protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 because the term “SbtA” does not provide any particular structure or function and the term “derived” does not limit the protein to a naturally occurring protein from the genus Synechocystis.
Claims 19-20 are directed in part to the recombinant microorganism of claim 1 that introduce a SbtA protein with any variation of the SEQ ID NO:1. Claims 19-20 inherit the same issues as claim 1.
Claims 21 and 22 are directed in part to the method of claim 15, wherein the SbtA protein with any variation of the SEQ ID NO:1. Claims 21 and 22 inherit the same issues as claim 15.
Claim 23 is directed in part to the recombinant microorganism of claim 1, wherein at least a part of an OdhA gene is deleted to weaken the activity of OdhA protein. Claim 23 inherits the same issues as claim 1.
Claim 24 is directed in part to the method of claim 6, wherein at least a part of an OdhA gene is deleted to weaken the activity of OdhA protein. Claim 24 inherits the same issues as claim 6.
Claim 25 is directed in part to the method of claim 15, wherein at least a part of an OdhA gene is deleted to weaken the activity of OdhA protein. Claim 25 inherits the same issues as claim 15.
Applicants demonstrate written description support for a Corynebacterium glutamicum strain having a deletion in the endogenous OdhA gene, wherein the C. glutamicum strain has been modified to express the protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 and a method to produce L-glutamic acid by culturing said C. glutamicum strain or a NTG mutant Corynebacterium glutamicum strain with the protein of SEQ ID NO:1 being capable of increasing L-glutamic acid production relative to their parent strain.
Regarding Corynebacterium glutamicum, the specifications filed 03/07/2023
show examples of modified Corynebacterium glutamicum and methods of using the same that
have either: 1) "an improved ability to produce L-glutamic acid compared with a parent
strain before introducing an SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein"
or 2) "improving/improve L-glutamic acid production" (specifications filed 03/07/2023,
pg. 28, example 2; pg. 32, example 3). The modified strains of Corynebacterium include
CA02-1474, CA02-1475, and CA02-1476. Example 3-1 of the specification’s states that
the CA02-1474, CA02-1475 strains are "derived” from Corynebacterium glutamicum
ATCC13869 and having L-glutamic acid producing ability, the Corynebacterium
glutamicum ATCC13869AodhA strain with a deletion of odhA gene was prepared based
on the prior art. The amplified upstream and downstream regions of odhA, and the
pDCM2 vector for chromosomal transformation, which was cleaved with Smal restriction
enzyme, were cloned using the Gibson assembly method to thereby obtain a
recombinant plasmid, which was then named pDCM2-AodhA.. The constructed
pDCM2-AodhA vector was transformed into the Corynebacterium glutamicum
ATCC13869 strain" (specifications filed 03/07/2023, pg. 32, example 3-1). The CA02-
1476 strain is constructed using KFCC11074 strain as a parent strain, and transformed
with the pDCM2-ACglE0286::CJ7-sbtA vector (specifications, pg 36, example 4). The
KFCC11074 is an NTG mutant (specifications, pg. 36, example 4).
In summary, the strains CA02-1474, and CA02-1475 comprise a deleted odhA
gene, and the strain CA02-1476 is an NTG mutant. As shown above, independent
claims 1, 6 and 15 are not limited to ATCC13869 AodhA or KFCC11074 derived strains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
(Previous Rejection, Withdrawn)
Claims 13 and 14 were 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. Applicants have amended claims 13 and 14 to recite “The recombinant microorganism” rendering the indefiniteness moot.
(New Rejections, necessitated by amendment and new claims)
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (Claims 3, 12-14, 19-20 and 23 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “activity of OdhA protein is weakened” for the following reasons. The term is indefinite in the absence of the specific activity being “weakened”. The term “weakened” is a relative term and the claim fails to provide the required basis for comparison (i.e., weakened compared to what?). Correction is required.
Claim 1 (Claims 3, 12-14, 19-20 and 23 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “derived from” for the following reasons. A protein “derived” from another protein can have any structure because there is no limit associated with “derived” as to how many modifications you can make to a naturally occurring protein. Correction is required.
Claim 1 (Claims 3, 12-14, 19-20 and 23 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein…” in lines 2-3 and “introducing an SbtA protein or a polynucleotide…” in lines 5-6 for the following reasons. It is unclear if the “an SbtA protein or a polynucleotide…” refers back to the earlier recitation of “sodium dependent SbtA or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein…” or is a different protein and polynucleotide. Correction is required.
Claim 1 (Claims 3, 12-14, 19-20 and 23 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “improved ability to produce… compared with a parent strain”. The term “parent strain” encompasses a genus of strains which is not limited to the same C. glutamicum cell of the preamble. The claim requires a basis for comparison which is variable, making a determination as to what is included or excluded impossible. Correction is required.
Claim 3 is indefinite in the recitation of “amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity therewith” for the following reasons. The term is unclear because one cannot determine if “therewith” is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Correction is required.
Claim 6 (Claims 8, 10-11, and 24 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “derived from” for the following reasons. A protein “derived” from another protein can have any structure because there is no limit associated with “derived” as to how many modifications you can make to a naturally occurring protein. Correction is required.
Claim 6 (Claims 8, 10-11, and 24 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “improved ability to produce… compared with a parent strain”. The term “parent strain” encompasses a genus of strains which is not limited to the same C. glutamicum cell of the preamble. The claim requires a basis for comparison which is variable, making a determination as to what is included or excluded impossible. Correction is required.
Claim 8 is indefinite in the recitation of “amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity therewith” for the following reasons. The term is unclear because one cannot determine if “therewith” is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Correction is required.
Claim 15 (Claims 16-18, 21-22 and 25 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “derived from” for the following reasons. A protein “derived” from another protein can have any structure because there is no limit associated with “derived” as to how many modifications you can make to a naturally occurring protein. Correction is required.
Claim 19 is indefinite in the recitation of “amino acid sequence having at least 94% sequence identity therewith” for the following reasons. The term is unclear because one cannot determine if “therewith” is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Correction is required.
Claim 20 is indefinite in the recitation of “amino acid sequence having at least 99% sequence identity therewith” for the following reasons. The term is unclear because one cannot determine if “therewith” is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Correction is required.
Claim 21 is indefinite in the recitation of “amino acid sequence having at least 94% sequence identity therewith” for the following reasons. The term is unclear because one cannot determine if “therewith” is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Correction is required.
Claim 22 is indefinite in the recitation of “amino acid sequence having at least 99% sequence identity therewith” for the following reasons. The term is unclear because one cannot determine if “therewith” is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein activity of OdhA protein is weakened”. Claim 6, from which claim 11 depends from, does not recite “OdhA”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein activity of OdhA protein is weakened”. Claim 6, from which claim 24 depends from, does not recite “OdhA”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein activity of OdhA protein is weakened”. Claim 15, from which claim 24 depends from, does not recite “OdhA”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(Previous Rejection, Withdrawn)
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirsch² (see form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited). Applicants’ amendment filed on 11/06/2025 cancelling claims 2 and 4 and amending claim 1 to include the limitations of claims 4 and 5, incorporated elements that are no longer taught by Kirsch and the anticipation rejection is therefore withdrawn.
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.
(Previous Rejection, Withdrawn)
Claim 3 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch as applied to claims 1-2, and 4 above, and further in view of Uniprot³ (see form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited). Applicants’ amendment filed on 11/06/2025 cancelling claims 2 and 4 and amending claim 1 to include the limitations of claims 4 and 5, incorporated elements that are no longer taught by Kirsch and the obviousness rejection is therefore withdrawn.
(New Rejections, necessitated by amendment and new claims)
Claims 1, 12-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura et al. (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, published 12/08/2006), Kirsch (published 2014) and in view of Mpofu et al. (International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology, published May 2012).
Asakura et al. teaches L-Glutamate production in an uninduced odhA deletion strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum is comparable to an induced wildtype strain and when the odhA deletion strain is induced, the productivity of L-Glutamate increases about 10% with each L-glutamate induction (see abstract). Therefore, Asakura et al. teaches a recombinant strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum that has weakened/deleted activity of odhA with an improved ability to produce L-Glutamate compared to a parent strain (wildtype).
Asakura et al. does not teach introducing a sodium dependent SbtA protein derived from the genus Synechocystis.
Kirsch teaches SbtA from Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 is a Na+/HCO3- symporter (see 1.4 Cyanobacterial bicarbonate importers). Kirsch further teaches a C. glutamicum strain that has bca knocked out and SbtA and SbtB inserted (Δbca + SbtAB) to showed a higher uptake of bicarbonate compared to the C. glutamicum wild type without SbtAB (see 2.3.2 Radiochemical detection of bicarbonate uptake, 3.2.3 The activity of SbtAb in C. glutamicum is difficult to display). Kirsch further teaches that bicarbonate uptake by wild type C. glutamicum was repeatedly observed and cannot rule out that unspecific uptake takes place in C. glutamicum (see 3.2.3 The activity of SbtAb in C. glutamicum is difficult to display). Therefore, Kirsch teaches the expression of SbtA in a C. glutamicum strain increases bicarbonate uptake.
Kirsch does not teach a recombinant C. glutamicum with OdhA activity weakened/deleted, that has an improved ability to produce L-Glutamic acid.
Mpofu et al. teaches adding NaHCO3 to fermentation medium at alkaline pH of 8, glutamate conversion yield was increased up to 35.2 % in C. glutamicum compared to that of regular fermentation (control) (see abstract). Therefore, Mpofu et al. teaches the benefits of bicarbonate uptake by C. glutamicum to produce glutamate.
Mpofu et al. does not teach a recombinant C. glutamicum with OdhA activity weakened/deleted, that has an improved ability to produce L-Glutamic acid. Mpofu et al. does not teach introducing a sodium dependent SbtA protein derived from the genus Synechocystis.
Claims 1, 12-14 and 23 are directed in part to a recombinant Corynebacterium glutamicum with a weakened OdhA protein activity that has an improved ability to produce L-glutamic acid compared with a parent strain before introducing an SbtA protein derived from the genus Synechocystis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to introduce the SbtA protein from the genus Synechocystis of Kirsch to the odhA deletion strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum of Asakura et al. for the benefit of producing a recombinant microorganism that has an improved ability to produce L-glutamic acid.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to introduce SbtA to a C. glutamicum microorganism for the benefit of increasing the uptake of bicarbonate as SbtA is a Na+/HCO3- symporter. Mpofu et al. teaches that NaHCO3 increases the production yield of glutamate. Kirsch taught that expression of a SbtA protein in C. glutamicum increase the bicarbonate intake compared to the wildtype that did not express SbtA.
One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in producing a recombinant C. glutamicum that has improved L-glutamic acid production compared to a parent strain by deleting the OdhA protein and introducing a SbtA protein from Synechocystis. The deletion of the OdhA protein is known in the art to increase the production of L-glutamic acid as evidenced by Asakura et al. and SbtA has been shown to increase the uptake of bicarbonate in C. glutamicum as evidenced by Kirsch. An increase in uptake of bicarbonate has been shown to increase the production of glutamate as evidenced by Mpofu et al. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura et al. (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, published 12/08/2006), Kirsch (published 2014), Mpofu et al. (International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology, published May 2012) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schnell et al. (US 10,337,024B2, published 07/02/2019). .
The teachings of Asakura et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Kirsch have been discussed above.
The teachings of Mpofu et al. have been discussed above.
Schnell et al. teaches plants engineered with exogenous bicarbonate transporters show enhanced carbon photosynthetic capture/fixation rates (see column 5, Detailed Description). Schnell et al. further teaches the bicarbonate being a SbtA polypeptide from Synechocystis, Synechocystis PCC6803 (see column 7, Lines 56-63), and specifically an SbtA with 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 (SEQ ID NO:2).
Claims 1, 3 and 19-20 are directed in part to the recombinant C. glutamicum of claim 1, wherein the SbtA protein contains the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or an amino acid sequence of at least 90 %, 94 % and 99 % identity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the SbtA protein taught by Kirsch, with the SbtA protein taught by Schnell et al. The SbtA protein taught by Kirsch and Schnell et al. are both derived from the same Synechocystis PCC 6803 species (Kirsch, abstract).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to substitute the SbtA protein of Kirsch with the SbtA protein of Schnell et al. because it is known to help with the uptake of bicarbonate in C. glutamicum as evidenced by Schnell et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art has reasonable expectation of success in making the above substitution because both proteins are derived from the same protein and are known to have the same function. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 8, 10-11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura et al. (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, published 12/08/2006), Kirsch (published 2014), Mpofu et al. (International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology, published May 2012) and further in view of Schnell et al. (US 10,337,024B2, published 07/02/2019).
The teachings of Asakura et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Kirsch have been discussed above.
The teachings of Mpofu et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Schnell et al. have been discussed above.
Claims 6, 8, 10-11 and 24 are directed in part to a method for producing L-glutamic acid, the method comprising culturing, in a medium, a recombinant microorganism of the genus Corynebacterium glutamicum producing L-glutamic acid, in which a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the sodium dependent SbtA protein is introduced, and wherein the recombinant microorganism has an improved ability to produce L-glutamic acid compared with a parent strain before introducing a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the sodium dependent SbtA protein, and wherein the sodium dependent SbtA protein is derived from the genus Synechocystis, wherein the SbtA protein is the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 or has at least 90% sequence identity and L-glutamic acid is recovered from the recombinant microorganism or the medium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the SbtA protein taught by Kirsch, with the SbtA protein taught by Schnell et al. and introduce the SbtA protein to the odhA deletion strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum of Asakura et al. for the benefit of producing L-glutamic acid.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to introduce SbtA to a C. glutamicum microorganism for the benefit of increasing the uptake of bicarbonate as SbtA is a Na+/HCO3- symporter. Mpofu et al. teaches that NaHCO3 increases the production yield of glutamate. Kirsch taught that expression of a SbtA protein in C. glutamicum increase the bicarbonate intake compared to the wildtype that did not express SbtA and substituting the SbtA protein of Kirsch with the SbtA protein of Schnell et al. because it is known to help with the uptake of bicarbonate in C. glutamicum as evidenced by Schnell et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art has reasonable expectation of success in producing L-glutamic acid by making the above modifications to a Corynebacterium glutamicum because it is known in the art that introducing SbtA to a Corynebacterium glutamicum increases the production of L-glutamic acid in a species that already produces L-glutamic acid. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-18, 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura et al. (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, published 12/08/2006), Kirsch (published 2014), Mpofu et al. (International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology, published May 2012) and further in view of Schnell et al. (US 10,337,024B2, published 07/02/2019).
The teachings of Asakura et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Kirsch have been discussed above.
The teachings of Mpofu et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Schnell et al. have been discussed above.
Claims 15-18, 21-22 and 25 are directed in part to a method for improving L-glutamic acid production comprising introducing a sodium dependent SbtA protein or a polynucleotide encoding the SbtA protein into a microorganism of Corynebacterium glutamicum, and wherein the sodium dependent SbtA protein is derived from the genus Synechocystis; and culturing the microorganism in a medium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the SbtA protein taught by Kirsch, with the SbtA protein taught by Schnell et al. and introduce the SbtA protein to the odhA deletion strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum of Asakura et al. for the benefit of improving the production L-glutamic acid.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to introduce SbtA to a C. glutamicum microorganism for the benefit of increasing the uptake of bicarbonate as SbtA is a Na+/HCO3- symporter. Mpofu et al. teaches that NaHCO3 increases the production yield of glutamate. Kirsch taught that expression of a SbtA protein in C. glutamicum increase the bicarbonate intake compared to the wildtype that did not express SbtA and substituting the SbtA protein of Kirsch with the SbtA protein of Schnell et al. because it is known to help with the uptake of bicarbonate in C. glutamicum as evidenced by Schnell et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art has reasonable expectation of success in improving the production of L-glutamic acid by making the above modifications to a Corynebacterium glutamicum because it is known in the art that introducing SbtA to a Corynebacterium glutamicum increases the production of L-glutamic acid. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALTON EDWARD KIEFER whose telephone number is (571)272-1235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at 408 918-7584. 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.
/DALTON EDWARD KIEFER/Examiner, Art Unit 1652
/ROBERT B MONDESI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights