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 .
Application Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
In response to Advisory action mailed on 12/31/2025, applicants’ response and amendments dated 02/20/2026 is acknowledged; in said amendment applicants’ have amended claims 1 and 9. Thus, amended claims 1-5 and 9 are pending and are now under consideration. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/037275 filed on 10/08/2021 and claims the priority date of Japan application 2020-171513 filed on 10/09/2020; English translation of said foreign priority application has been provided in the response dated12/22/2025. Therefore, the priority date for instant claims under consideration is deemed to be the filing date of Japan application 2020-171513 filed on 10/09/2020.
Maintained-Double Patenting rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Amended claims 1-5 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over amended claims 8-9 (depending from claim 1, dated 08/16/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/839,260 (US 20250154542 A1; assignee AMANO enzyme). This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced co-pending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that co-pending application since the referenced co-pending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: The recited amended claims 8-9 (depending from claim 1, dated 08/16/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/839,260 (US 20250154542 A1; assignee AMANO enzyme) also encompass, see provided sequence alignments “… a method for producing allulose comprising a step of allowing a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 6 or a polypeptide consisting of a sequence having 90% or higher identity to the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 6 and capable of producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions in which pH is less than 6… and enzyme compositions…” as claimed in amended claims 1-5 and 9, and falls entirely within the scope of co-pending claims 8-9 (depending from claim 1, dated 08/16/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/839,260 (US 20250154542 A1; assignee AMANO enzyme). This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicants’ have traversed the above ODP rejection with the following arguments: (see page 4 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 02/20/2026).
Applicants’ argue: “…At this point, Applicant would like to hold this rejection in abeyance until the resolution of the other rejection within this application.”
Reply: Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive for the following reasons. None of the claims are in condition for allowance and therefore, the rejection is maintained. The scope of co-pending claims in co-pending application are directed to the same subject-matter, as the reference polypeptides (epimerase variants) have 100%-98.6% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant application of the instant application.
Maintained-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Amended Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); (ii) Chouaia et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A060QHB0 (99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); and (iii) Hosoyama et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0AAN4R1J8 (99.1% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention) disclose reference polypeptides having epimerase activity (see provided sequence alignments) and further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) and Woodyer et al., (US 9,725,707 B2).
Claims 1-5 are directed to a method for producing allulose comprising a step of allowing a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6 or a polypeptide consisting of a sequence having 90% or higher identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6 and has an enzyme activity of producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions in which pH is less than 5; wherein the enzyme activity at pH 4 is at least 90% of the enzyme activity at pH 7.
The disclosure of Chen et al., Chouaia et al., and Hosoyama et al., are silent regarding producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions at pH 5.0 (as in claim 1).
Regarding claims 1-5, the following reference Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) disclose polypeptides having sequence identities 99.3%-93.2% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignments) and said reference polypeptides exhibiting fructose to allulose epimerase activity (see Abstract; Fig. 1-2; claims and entire document); and active at a pH range of 4.5, 5.0, & 7.0 and at a temperature of 600C-700C (Fig. 2 & 8-9; col. 2, lines 55-67 to col. 3, lines 1-15); isolation and expression of genes encoding said reference epimerase polypeptides and method of producing allulose from fructose (Figs. 6-7, 9 & col. 14, lines 58-67 to col. 19, lines 1-67); Venkatasubramanian et al., explicitly provide guidance, teaching, suggestion and motivation regarding producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions in which pH is less than 5… as “at a temperature of 600C fructose and allulose stability is best between pH 4.5 and 6.5 and operating the process at pH 7-8 and at high temperature results in formation of byproducts in the reaction mixture that leads to yield loss and requires removal of color bodies from the final product (see col. 2, lines 1-6; reproduced below) and said reference epimerase enzyme was reconstituted in suitable buffer for assaying enzyme activity (see General Details, cols. 13-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
92
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Woodyer et al., (US 9,725,707 B2), an analogous art provides clear teaching, suggestion and motivation regarding the use of epimerase enzymes for producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions, at pH 4 and at high temperatures of 600C-750C (see col. 3, lines 5-12 reproduced below; and entire document); and said reference epimerase enzyme was reconstituted in suitable buffer for assaying enzyme activity (see col. 4, lines 41-62; and entire document).
US 9,725,707, Col. 3, lines 5-12
PNG
media_image2.png
82
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, using the indications of Venkatasubramanian et al., and Woodyer et al., as a reference, it would have been easy for a person skilled in the art to use the gene/DNA as disclosed by Chen et al., Chouaia et al., and Hosoyama et al., coding for an epimerase and to transform an isolated host cell of interest and use the generated transformant to produce epimerase enzyme and to use the epimerase enzymes for producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions, at pH 4-5.0 and at high temperatures of 600C-750C. As such, disclosures of Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); (ii) Chouaia et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A060QHB0 (99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); and (iii) Hosoyama et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0AAN4R1J8 (99.1% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention) disclose reference polypeptides having epimerase activity (see provided sequence alignments), furthermore structure and function are inseparable and clearly suggests to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Venkatasubramanian et al., and Woodyer et al., and incorporate the epimerases of Chen et al., Chouaia et al., and Hosoyama et al., in the claimed compositions and method of use as claimed in the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success, since method of making and using said epimerase polypeptides are well known in the art.
Hence, amended claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); (ii) Chouaia et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A060QHB0 (99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); and (iii) Hosoyama et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0AAN4R1J8 (99.1% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention) disclose reference polypeptides having epimerase activity (see provided sequence alignments) and further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) and Woodyer et al., (US 9,725,707 B2).
Additionally, examiner also finds support in the following sections of MPEP:
2112 [R-3] Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (, X7Fed. Cir. 1983).
I. SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DIS-COVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.” Id.< See also MPEP § 2112.01 with regard to inherency and product-by-process claims and MPEP § 2141.02 with regard to inherency and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
II. INHERENT FEATURE NEED NOT BE RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(“[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”); Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.”); Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Because sufficient aeration’ was inherent in the prior art, it is irrelevant that the prior art did not recognize the key aspect of [the] invention.... An inherent structure, composition, or function is not necessarily known.”)>; SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1398, 1406-07 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a prior art patent to an anhydrous form of a compound “inherently” anticipated the claimed hemihydrate form of the compound because practicing the process in the prior art to manufacture the anhydrous compound “inherently results in at least trace amounts of” the claimed hemihydrate even if the prior art did not discuss or recognize the hemihydrate).
III. A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims.
Examiner holds the position that the cited references render claims 1-5 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when one applies the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation (TSM) test under the rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness as suggested by the KSR ruling. The rationale applied for this rejection is as follows:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicants’ have traversed the above 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection with the following arguments (see pages 3-7 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 02/20/2026).
Applicants’ argue (A) “…Applicant respectfully submit that the Advisory Action fails to address the Applicant's request of removal of Chen as prior art, based on previously submitted English translation of Japan application 2020-171513. The priority date of the instant application is traced back to October 9, 2020. Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention), which is published on May 17, 2021, is no longer prior art for the instant application…The Advisory Office Action, on page 5-6, admits that Chen et al (which should no longer be prior art), Chouaia et al., and Hosoyama et al., are silent regarding producing allulose to react…”
Reply (A): Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for reasons made of record in the Office-action dated 10/22/2025 and 12/31/2025. Contrary to applicants’ arguments and assertions, the factual findings are as follows: Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention) is prior art, as the publication date of said reference Chen et al., is 05/08/2019 (see evidence provided below) and the instant application is given the filing date of Japan application 2020-171513 filed on 10/09/2020.
PNG
media_image3.png
590
1154
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hence, examiner continues to maintain that Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention) is prior art, as the publication date of said reference Chen et al., is 05/08/2019.
Applicants’ further argue (B) “…Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art, including Venkatasubramanian and Woody, does not render obvious the presently claimed enzyme having low-pH activity. Among the sequences in Venkatasubramanian that share high sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 6 of the present application (SEQ ID NOs: 42, 44, 46, and 48), only SEQ ID NO: 48 was actually evaluated at low pH. As shown in Fig. 7 of Venkatasubramanian, SEQ ID NO: 48 (203974), which has 95.6% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the present application, does not exhibit activity at low pH…”
Reply (B): Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for reasons made of record in the Office-action dated 10/22/2025 and 12/31/2025. Contrary to applicants’ arguments and assertions, the factual findings are as follows: Regarding claims 1-5, the following reference Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) disclose polypeptides having sequence identities 99.3%-93.2% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignments); contrary to applicants arguments said reference polypeptides SEQ ID NO: 42 has 99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention; and contrary to applicants arguments SEQ ID NO: 48 has 96.8% (~97%) sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention (see provided evidence below):
PNG
media_image4.png
412
1162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner also takes the position that Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) explicitly provide guidance, teaching, suggestion and motivation regarding producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions in which pH is less than 5… as “at a temperature of 600C fructose and allulose stability is best between pH 4.5 and 6.5 and operating the process at pH 7-8 and at high temperature results in formation of byproducts in the reaction mixture that leads to yield loss and requires removal of color bodies from the final product (see col. , lines 1-6; reproduced below) and said reference epimerase enzyme was reconstituted in suitable buffer for assaying enzyme activity (see General Details, cols. 13-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
92
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The main thrust of Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) is as follows: “Epimerase enzymes for conversion of fructose to allulose at high temperature and low pH” and clearly suggest and provide motivation to employ various epimerase enzymes in said method (see provided evidence below):
PNG
media_image5.png
102
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
168
274
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner maintains the position that “Obviousness does not require an absolute certainty of success but merely a reasonable expectation thereof, so long as the motivation or suggestion to combine the teaching of the cited references is known or disclosed in the prior art and is obvious to one skilled in the art and this is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”.
The specification and the data presented in the specification only supports a single species, i.e., a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6 with the recited biochemical properties. There is no support in the specification for any polypeptide having 97% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 and having the claimed biochemical properties and there is no support in the specification for the broader genus. Therefore, examiner continues to maintain the structure disclosed by Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) i.e., polypeptides having said reference polypeptides SEQ ID NO: 42 has 99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention; and contrary to applicants arguments SEQ ID NO: 48 has 96.8% (~97%) sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignments) and said reference polypeptides exhibiting fructose to allulose epimerase activity inherently has the claimed biochemical properties as structure and function are inseparable and the references of Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) and Woodyer et al., (US 9,725,707 B2) an analogous art provides clear teaching, suggestion and motivation to a skilled artisan regarding the use of epimerase enzymes for producing allulose to react with fructose under acidic conditions, at pH 4 and at high temperatures of 600C-750C. Examiner also reiterates the instant specification is limited to a single species, a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6 with the recited biochemical properties; there is no support in the specification for any polypeptide having 97% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 and having the claimed biochemical properties.
Summary of Pending Issues
The following is a summary of issues pending in the instant application
Amended claims 1-5 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over amended claims 8-9 (depending from claim 1, dated 08/16/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/839,260 (US 20250154542 A1; assignee AMANO enzyme).
Amended claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Chen et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A433WXW4 (100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); (ii) Chouaia et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0A060QHB0 (99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention); and (iii) Hosoyama et al., UniProtKB/TrEMBL Accesion#A0AAN4R1J8 (99.1% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6 of the instant invention) disclose reference polypeptides having epimerase activity (see provided sequence alignments) and further in view of Venkatasubramanian et al., (US 10,480,018 B2) and Woodyer et al., (US 9,725,707 B2).
Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable. Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected for the reasons identified in the Rejections and Summary sections of this Office Action. Applicants’ must respond to the rejections in each of the sections in this Office Action to be fully responsive for prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652