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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, encompassing claims 52-58 in the reply filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 59-61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 62-70 are newly added. Claims 59-70 are pending. Claims 52-58 and 62-70 are being examined on the merits.
Priority
The application is a 371 PCT of US2021/060547 filed 11/23/2021 which claims priority to applications 63/118,307 filed 11/25/2020 and 63/117,441 filed 11/23/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/06/2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 62 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 62 is reasonably construed to encompass a nucleic acid encoding the CRISPR-associated protein or a nucleic acid encoding the guide RNA, with the selected encoding nucleic acid operably linked to a promoter. Clarification to recite “a nucleic acid encoding the CRISPR-associated protein or a nucleic acid encoding the guide RNA” is suggested to avoid a possible reading in which a promoter is operably linked to the actual guide RNA. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 63, 65, and 66 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 55 depends from claim 52 and recites “the targeting”, although claim 52 does not mention targeting. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 63 depends from claim 52 and recites “the promoter sequence,” although claim 52 does not introduce a promoter sequence. Claim 65 depends from claim 52 and recites “the enhancer sequence,” although claim 52 does not introduce an enhancer sequence. Claim 66 depends from claim 52 and recites “the self-cleaving 2A peptide” and “the IRES sequence,” although claim 52 does not introduce either element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims. Applicant should introduce the respective element expressly or correct the dependency and associated language to reflect the intended subject matter. For example, if the promoter is intended to be the operably linked promoter of claim 62, claim 63 should depend from claim 62. If claims 65 and 66 are intended to select expression elements in the vector of claim 64, those claims should depend from claim 64 and expressly require the applicable enhancer, 2A-encoding sequence, or IRES alternative.
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.
Claims 55 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for specific disclosed CRISPR/Cas embodiments, does not reasonably provide enablement for full scope of the claimed functional systems without undue experimentation. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claims are directed to a system comprising a guide RNA and a CRISPR-associated protein. Claim 55 requires target modification of the system by cleavage, and claim 69 requires that the CRISPR-associated protein is modified to bind and alter the target without cleaving it. Each incorporates claim 52’s sequence-defined alternatives and ≥95% variants. The rejection concerns obtaining those operative functions throughout the claimed scope; it is not based on a requirement to demonstrate treatment or human-cell activity.
The nature and breadth of the claimed inventions extend beyond production of the listed amino acid sequences. The claims encompass operative guide/protein combinations based on fifty reference proteins and qualifying variants. The disclosure identifies candidates through proximity to CRISPR arrays, sequence clustering, and predicted annotation, with protein sequences and array-related information provided in Tables 1 and 2. The examples prioritize candidates for subsequent functional investigation rather than demonstrate the newly identified candidates’ claimed functions [pp. 46–50; Tables 1–2; Figs. 6A–7]. In particular, page 50 describes candidates selected for further functional analysis. The breadth is significant because the candidates include proteins with different or uncharacterized predicted functions rather than a single experimentally established effector framework.
The amount of direction and the examples do not establish a generally applicable relationship between candidate sequence, guide architecture, target-recognition requirements, and the claimed functional result. General guide information, expression constructs, promoters, and carriers explain familiar tools, but do not identify for the insufficiently characterized candidates the operative combination of repeat structure, auxiliary RNA where needed, target requirements, and reaction conditions [pp. 10–12, 39–41, 46–50]. For claim 69, the additional required relationship is a modification that preserves guide-directed binding and provides alteration while eliminating cleavage. The disclosure does not establish a common rule for obtaining that result across the candidate classes and their qualifying variants. This finding is not based solely on the absence of working examples; it concerns the lack of a reliable teaching connecting the disclosed candidates to the breadth of the claimed functions.
The state of the art confirms both substantial skill and limits on predictability. Zhang (WO 2020/033601, published 02/13/2020) reports testing fourteen candidate Cas12b systems and detecting functional interference in four, including LsCas12b, followed by differing biochemical performance and guide-engineering results [1597–1598]. Zhang also reports testing 268 single mutants of another Cas12b ortholog to identify activity improvements [1600]. These results show that even within a recognized effector family, identifying appropriate RNA components and obtaining a selected activity profile can require empirical investigation. They do not prove that the other tested systems are incapable of any activity, nor do they establish a numerical failure rate applicable to applicant’s candidates. They corroborate the need for candidate-specific functional guidance where the claimed scope extends beyond the characterized systems.
The ordinary level of skill is high: a skilled person would be familiar with recombinant protein production, nucleic-acid synthesis, CRISPR guide design for characterized systems, cloning, and functional assays. Nevertheless, the experiments needed for the insufficiently characterized portion of the claimed scope would require first establishing whether and how a candidate functions as a guide-directed effector, identifying compatible RNA components and target requirements, and identifying operative variants. For claim 69, the skilled person would further need to obtain retained binding, loss of cleavage, and the claimed alteration function. Merely knowing how to perform assays does not supply the missing relationships. Because the disclosure does not provide a reliable selection rule or representative functional guidance for that portion of the genus, the required work is a research program to identify operative systems rather than routine adjustment of an already taught operative system.
The enabled subject matter is not treated as empty. The specification and pre-filing art provide a basis for making and using characterized CRISPR systems within the claims, including the qualifying Laceyella sediminis Cas12b with compatible RNA components and suitable DNA targets under conditions supporting its known activity, together with routine encoding constructs [p. 14 and pp. 39–41; Zhang, Table 2, p. 135; 1597–1598]. Known inactive-effector and functional-domain approaches also provide guidance for characterized backgrounds [Zhang, 0024, 0029, 0491–0494]. However, those teachings do not reasonably establish full-scope enablement for candidate proteins lacking comparable structural and functional characterization. The existence of enabled and anticipated or obvious embodiments is therefore consistent with the separate conclusion that the application does not enable the broader claimed functional genus.
Considering the claim breadth, the limited functional guidance for newly identified candidate classes, the nature of the necessary experimentation, the high but finite skill in the art, and the demonstrated context dependence of related effectors, the disclosure does not reasonably enable claims 55 and 69 throughout their scope without undue experimentation. Defining the claims by successful cleavage or successful noncleaving alteration does not itself teach how to identify the operative members without that research. The rejection does not rest merely on a large number of variants, on any individual unsuccessful embodiment, or on absence of clinical or wet-lab data as a categorical requirement. Applicant may respond with evidence that the disclosure and knowledge available at filing made the identified work routine and predictably successful over the claimed scope, or with an appropriately supported narrowing amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a CRISPR Cas system comprising a guide RNA and a CRISPR-associated protein without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a product of nature. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely refer to the product of nature without markedly different characteristics. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no other elements are recited in the claims in addition to the guide RNA and CRISPR protein.
Regarding claim 52, the claimed CRISPR/Cas system is a composition of matter and therefore falls within a statutory category of invention under Step 1. Nevertheless, the claim encompasses a nature-based combination comprising a guide RNA having a repeat sequence and a target-complementary spacer sequence together with an unmodified naturally occurring CRISPR-associated protein. The requirement that the protein comprise an amino acid sequence “at least 95% identical” to a listed sequence encompasses a protein having 100% identity to that sequence. The alternative recitation of an encoding nucleic acid does not exclude the expressly claimed protein-containing embodiment.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the identified nature-based product is the guide-RNA/CRISPR-associated-protein combination. The specification identifies the listed proteins through analysis of prokaryotic genomes and metagenomes and provides associated CRISPR-array information [pp. 46–50; Tables 1–2]. In particular, SEQ ID NO: 2 is identified as a Laceyella sediminis Cas12b protein, and the specification provides its associated repeat and spacer sequences [Table 1, p. 14; Table 2, p. 52]. Zhang (WO 2020/033601) corroborates the naturally derived Laceyella sediminis Cas12b sequence and describes the corresponding CRISPR locus and RNA-dependent DNA-interference activity [0468; Table 2, p. 135, SEQ ID NO: 392; 1596–1598]. The appropriate natural counterpart is therefore the corresponding Laceyella sediminis Cas12b system with its native RNA components.
The claim is construed to encompass human assembly of the unmodified protein and corresponding native RNA components. It does not require a substituted amino acid, an altered repeat or spacer, a covalent fusion of RNA components, a heterologous target specificity, or another particular structural or functional alteration. Accordingly, the identified embodiment retains the protein sequence, RNA-guided target recognition, and associated activity of its natural counterpart. Evaluating the combination as a whole, human assembly of those components does not, in that embodiment, confer a markedly different characteristic. The conclusion is based on the identified embodiment retaining its natural characteristics, rather than merely on the fact that its components originated in nature.
The recitation “non-naturally occurring” has been considered. Under the construction above, that language encompasses a system assembled through human intervention without requiring a particular change in the resulting product’s structure or characteristics. Human intervention alone does not establish a marked difference. Thus, the rejection does not disregard that limitation or equate the claim with a system remaining untouched in its native organism. Rather, it addresses a human-assembled nature-based combination that retains the characteristics of its natural counterpart [MPEP §§2106.04(b), 2106.04(c)].
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 52 does not recite additional elements integrating the identified product-of-nature exception into a practical application. The repeat sequence, spacer sequence capable of hybridizing to a target, and qualifying protein collectively define the identified nature-based combination and its native recognition capability. The claim does not require a particular engineered target relationship, modification of a specified substrate in a technological process, or another application beyond possession of the recited system. Considering the limitations individually and together, the identified embodiment remains directed to the nature-based combination itself.
Under Step 2B, claim 52 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified exception. For the protein-containing embodiment addressed above, the claim adds no required component or operation beyond the nature-based combination and the characterization that the system is non-naturally occurring. This determination does not depend on treating an unrecited manufacturing process as conventional, nor does it rest on the separate findings of anticipation or obviousness. The claim therefore fails the eligibility analysis for the identified embodiment.
Regarding claim 53, requiring an amino acid sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs: 1–50 continues to encompass the unmodified Laceyella sediminis protein of SEQ ID NO: 2. The exact-sequence limitation does not distinguish that embodiment from the protein in the identified natural counterpart. The claim adds no requirement that changes the characteristics of the combination or supplies a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 54, limiting the target nucleic acid to RNA or DNA continues to encompass the native DNA-targeting capability of the identified Cas12b system. The DNA alternative does not require a new target specificity or other markedly different characteristic and does not supply an additional practical application or significantly more [1596–1598].
Regarding claim 55, the requirement that targeting result in a cleavage event encompasses the DNA-cleavage function associated with the identified Cas12b system [1597–1598]. The claim remains directed to a system characterized by that activity; it does not require a separate method of applying the system to accomplish a specified technological result. The recited cleavage function therefore does not distinguish the identified embodiment from its natural counterpart or add a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 52-58, 62-65, and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1, published February 13, 2020).
Regarding claims 52-53, Zhang discloses a non-naturally occurring or engineered system comprising a Cas12b effector protein selected from Table 1 or Table 2 and a guide having a guide sequence capable of hybridizing to a target sequence [0008]. Zhang expressly identifies Laceyella sediminis among the effector sources and describes crRNA containing a direct repeat, with a target-complementary guide sequence and an optional fused tracrRNA [0009; 0015; 0029]. The Laceyella sediminis protein of SEQ ID NO: 392 is disclosed in Table 2 and corresponds to applicant’s SEQ ID NO: 2 [0468–0469; Table 2, p. 135, SEQ ID NO: 392]. SEQ ID NO: 392 of Zhang is 100% identical to the current applications SEQ ID NO: 2. Zhang therefore discloses the recited engineered system, guide-repeat and spacer architecture, target hybridization, and qualifying protein.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang expressly describes the guide sequence hybridizing to a target DNA sequence [0015].
Regarding claim 55, Zhang describes a Table 1 or Table 2 Cas12b system in which modification of the target comprises cleavage [0015].
Regarding claim 56, Zhang expressly teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat [0009].
Regarding claim 57, Zhang discloses a delivery system configured to deliver a Table 1 or Table 2 Cas12b effector and its nucleic-acid components, including guide and tracrRNA components [0012–0013].
Regarding claim 58, Zhang expressly identifies liposomes as delivery vehicles for the described system. [0013].
Regarding claim 62 and 64, Zhang teaches a Cas12b vector system, which comprises one or more vectors comprising: a first regulatory element operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a Cas12b effector protein from Table 1 or 2, and a second regulatory element operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding the guide sequence; and that the regulatory element to include promoters, enhancers, internal ribosomal entry sites (IRES), and other expression control elements (e.g., transcription termination signals, such as polyadenylation signals and poly-U sequences) [0010, 0697].
Regarding claim 63, Zhang identifies the CMV, SV40, PGK, EF1α, and H1 promoters and tissue-specific promoters as available regulatory elements [0697].
Regarding claim 65, Zhang specifically discloses the CMV promoter optionally accompanied by the CMV enhancer and separately identifies CMV enhancers among the regulatory elements [0697].
Regarding claim 67, Zhang teaches associating Cas12b with functional domains, including an adenosine deaminase, and describes covalent linkage to the Cas protein [0009; 0024; 0029]. Zhang further teaches an adenosine deaminase containing a double-stranded RNA-binding domain or motif derived from an ADAR protein, including the use of full-length ADAR comprising a binding domain and a deaminase domain [0603].
Regarding claims 68, Zhang teaches that the target sequence may be a sequence within a RNA molecule selected from the group consisting of messenger RNA (mRNA), pre-mRNA, ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), micro-RNA (miRNA), etc. [0166].
Regarding claim 69, Zhang expressly describes site-directed base-editing systems using catalytically inactive Cas12b selected from Table 1 or Table 2, expressly including Laceyella sediminis, with an adenosine or cytidine deaminase [0024]. Zhang describes guide-directed target binding by inactive Cas12b and linkage of the deaminase to the targeting protein [0029]. Zhang further teaches mutations reducing or eliminating nuclease activity and identifies corresponding RuvC catalytic-residue substitutions [0491–0494].
Regarding claim 70, Zhang teaches use of the disclosed system, vector system, or delivery system in a therapeutic context and describes formulations containing pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, diluents, and excipients, including phosphate-buffered saline [0014; 0784–0785].
Claims 52, 54-58, 62-63 and 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng (WO 2019/006471 A2, published January 3, 2019).
Regarding claim 52, Cheng’s engineered system combines a repeat/spacer RNA guide with a Table 2 Cas13d effector [claims 1–2]. SEQ ID NO: 271 is 99% identical to SEQ ID NO: 5 [Table 2, p. 118].
Regarding claim 54, Cheng teaches that the CRISPR systems can be programmed to target DNA or RNA targets [pg. 2, para 2].
Regarding claim 55, Cheng teaches the Type VI-D CRISPR effector protein cleaves the target nucleic acid [pg. 6, para 7].
Regarding claim 56, Cheng teaches that the RNA guide further includes a trans-activating CRISPR RNA (tracrRNA) [pg. 6, para 1].
Regarding claims 57-58, Cheng teaches the systems are present in a delivery system (e.g., a nanoparticle, a liposome, an adeno-associated virus, an exosome, a microvesicle, and a gene-gun) [pg. 6, para 6].
Regarding claims 62-63, Cheng teaches nucleic acids encoding the proteins (e.g., a CRISPR-associated protein or an accessory protein) and RNA guides (e.g., a crRNA) operably linked to a regulatory element (e.g., a promoter) in order to control the expression of the nucleic acid. Cheng teaches that the promoter can be a H1, CMV, or SV40 promoter [pg. 45, para 2].
Regarding claim 67, Cheng teaches that the CRISPR-associated proteins can be used with an RNA-binding fusion polypeptide comprising a base-editing domain fused to an RNA-binding domain [pg. 67, para 4].
Regarding claim 68, Cheng connects the system to target cleavage and expressly includes mRNA [claims 47, 50].
Regarding claim 69, Cheng teaches catalytically inactive Cas 13d (known as dCas13d) that will retain its programmable RNA binding activity for translation modification, though it will no longer be able to cleave target or collateral RNA [pg. 180, para 4 – pg. 181, para 1].
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.
Claim 52-58 and 62-70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zhang (Zhang et al., WO 2020/033601 A1, published February 13, 2020, in view of Kim (Kim et al., PLOS ONE 6(4), published April 29, 2011).
Regarding claims 52-53, Zhang discloses a non-naturally occurring or engineered system comprising a Cas12b effector protein selected from Table 1 or Table 2 and a guide having a guide sequence capable of hybridizing to a target sequence [0008]. Zhang expressly identifies Laceyella sediminis among the effector sources and describes crRNA containing a direct repeat, with a target-complementary guide sequence and an optional fused tracrRNA [0009; 0015; 0029]. The Laceyella sediminis protein of SEQ ID NO: 392 is disclosed in Table 2 and corresponds to applicant’s SEQ ID NO: 2 [0468–0469; Table 2, p. 135, SEQ ID NO: 392]. SEQ ID NO: 392 of Zhang is 100% identical to the current applications SEQ ID NO: 2. Zhang therefore discloses the recited engineered system, guide-repeat and spacer architecture, target hybridization, and qualifying protein. Zhang also teaches providing a Cas12b protein linked to an inactive first portion of an enzyme or reporter moiety [0035].
Regarding claim 54, Zhang expressly describes the guide sequence hybridizing to a target DNA sequence [0015].
Regarding claim 55, Zhang describes a Table 1 or Table 2 Cas12b system in which modification of the target comprises cleavage [0015].
Regarding claim 56, Zhang expressly teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat [0009].
Regarding claim 57, Zhang discloses a delivery system configured to deliver a Table 1 or Table 2 Cas12b effector and its nucleic-acid components, including guide and tracrRNA components [0012–0013].
Regarding claim 58, Zhang expressly identifies liposomes as delivery vehicles for the described system. [0013].
Regarding claim 62 and 64, Zhang teaches a Cas12b vector system, which comprises one or more vectors comprising: a first regulatory element operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a Cas12b effector protein from Table 1 or 2, and a second regulatory element operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding the guide sequence; and that the regulatory element to include promoters, enhancers, internal ribosomal entry sites (IRES), and other expression control elements (e.g., transcription termination signals, such as polyadenylation signals and poly-U sequences) [0010, 0697].
Regarding claim 63, Zhang identifies the CMV, SV40, PGK, EF1α, and H1 promoters and tissue-specific promoters as available regulatory elements [0697].
Regarding claim 65, Zhang specifically discloses the CMV promoter optionally accompanied by the CMV enhancer and separately identifies CMV enhancers among the regulatory elements [0697].
Regarding claim 67, Zhang teaches associating Cas12b with functional domains, including an adenosine deaminase, and describes covalent linkage to the Cas protein [0009; 0024; 0029]. Zhang further teaches an adenosine deaminase containing a double-stranded RNA-binding domain or motif derived from an ADAR protein, including the use of full-length ADAR comprising a binding domain and a deaminase domain [0603].
Regarding claims 68, Zhang teaches that the target sequence may be a sequence within a RNA molecule selected from the group consisting of messenger RNA (mRNA), pre-mRNA, ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), micro-RNA (miRNA), etc. [0166].
Regarding claim 69, Zhang expressly describes site-directed base-editing systems using catalytically inactive Cas12b selected from Table 1 or Table 2, expressly including Laceyella sediminis, with an adenosine or cytidine deaminase [0024]. Zhang describes guide-directed target binding by inactive Cas12b and linkage of the deaminase to the targeting protein [0029]. Zhang further teaches mutations reducing or eliminating nuclease activity and identifies corresponding RuvC catalytic-residue substitutions [0491–0494].
Regarding claim 70, Zhang teaches use of the disclosed system, vector system, or delivery system in a therapeutic context and describes formulations containing pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, diluents, and excipients, including phosphate-buffered saline [0014; 0784–0785].
Regarding claim 66, Zhang do not specifically teach a T2A, P2A, E2A, and F2A 2A peptide in the gene delivery vector.
Kim teaches the use of 2A peptides for coexpression of separate protein products from a common expression construct and expressly identifies F2A, E2A, P2A, and T2A [p. 2, left col., second paragraph, beginning “2A-mediated cleavage”; Fig. 1B]. Kim identifies the advantages of short length and coordinated expression relative to IRES-based constructs [p. 2, left col., third paragraph, beginning “Two advantages”]. Kim also provides promoter-driven 2A-containing plasmids and demonstrates constructs with protein-coding sequences flanking the 2A element [p. 2, left col., fourth paragraph, beginning “To circumvent”; p. 2, “Plasmid construction,” continuing into right col.; Fig. 1C]. The abstract reports effective P2A-mediated separation in the tested human cell lines and animal contexts [p. 1, Abstract].
It would have been obvious to place a P2A-encoding sequence between the qualifying effector coding sequence and a coexpressed reporter in Zhang’s eukaryotic expression vector to permit coordinated production of the effector and a reporter for monitoring expression, while using the compact coexpression arrangement taught by Kim. A skilled person would have reasonably expected the 2A element to provide separate translation products based on Kim’s demonstrated eukaryotic constructs. The qualifying Cas portion is retained.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 52, 54–56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,622,419, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1, paragraphs [0596] and [0628] and Figure 24).
The reference claims recite guide-directed endonuclease systems used to disrupt insect genomic targets, including guide RNA and a Streptococcus thermophilus Cas9 alternative. Selecting the known LMD-9 Cas9 and its compatible repeat/spacer and tracrRNA guide architecture would have been an obvious implementation of that alternative for sequence-specific DNA cleavage. Its sequence is more than 95% identical to applicant SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claims 52, 54, and 56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,400,253, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1, paragraphs [0596] and [0628] and Figure 24).
The reference claims define an engineered Cas9/guide-RNA composition directed to target DNA. The target-complementary and repeat-derived guide portions correspond to the claimed spacer and repeat, and the activator portion provides tracrRNA. The remaining distinction is the specified protein sequence. It would have been obvious to select the known S. thermophilus LMD-9 Cas9 identified in Doudna, with a compatible guide, to obtain its established RNA-directed DNA-targeting activity. That Cas9 is more than 95% identical to applicant SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claims 52, 54, and 56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,513,712, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1, paragraphs [0596] and [0628] and Figure 24).
The reference claims define an engineered Cas9/guide-RNA composition directed to target DNA. The target-complementary and repeat-derived guide portions correspond to the claimed spacer and repeat, and the activator portion provides tracrRNA. The remaining distinction is the specified protein sequence. It would have been obvious to select the known S. thermophilus LMD-9 Cas9 identified in Doudna, with a compatible guide, to obtain its established RNA-directed DNA-targeting activity. That Cas9 is more than 95% identical to applicant SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claims 52, 54, 55, and 68 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 of copending Application No. 17/922,860, in view of Cheng (WO 2019/006471 A2, Table 2, SEQ ID NO: 271, and claims 1–2, 47, and 50).
The reference claims define a Cas13d system with a target-complementary guide for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA and an RNase-activity readout. Selecting Cheng’s known Cas13d ortholog and its compatible repeat/spacer guide would have been an obvious implementation of the claimed Cas13d alternative for RNA recognition and cleavage. The selected ortholog exceeds 95% identity to applicant SEQ ID NO: 5, and the viral RNA target satisfies claims 54 and 68.
Claims 52, 54–57, 62–64 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 15, and 17 of copending Application No. 17/926,970, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1, paragraphs [0596] and [0628] and Figure 24).
The reference claims provide an endonuclease/guide system, expression control, H1-promoter alternatives, vector delivery, and polyadenylation or self-cleaving-peptide elements. Selecting Doudna’s sequence-qualified Cas9 and compatible guide would have been an obvious implementation for guided genomic-DNA cleavage. Expressing the guide supplies the actual guide RNA required by claim 52. The encoding vector, H1 promoter, and polyadenylation alternative respectively satisfy claims 57, 62–63, and 64.
Claims 52, 54–56, and 62 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 15, and 17 of copending Application No. 17/629,348, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1, paragraphs [0596] and [0628] and Figure 24).
The reference claims provide guide-directed insect genomic targeting, expressed endonuclease, and progeny produced by combining the components. Using Doudna’s sequence-qualified Cas9 with its compatible repeat/spacer–tracrRNA guide would have been an obvious Cas9 implementation for DNA cleavage. Promoter-controlled Cas9 expression supplies claim 62. The present system claims encompass the resulting CRISPR system within the progeny.
Claims 52, 54, and 56 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/011,704, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1).
The reference claims use guide-directed nuclease-deficient Cas9 to bind genomic DNA and promote gene expression. Applying the known nuclease-inactivation approach to Doudna's sequence-qualified Cas9, with compatible targeting and tracrRNA components, would provide the claimed DNA-binding system while retaining more than 95% sequence identity to applicant SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claims 52, 54, and 56 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/868,107, in view of Doudna (US 2014/0068797 A1, paragraphs [0596] and [0628] and Figure 24).
The reference claim provides a transgenic animal encoding Cas9 and a guide targeting a female-essential gene. Selecting and expressing Doudna's sequence-qualified Cas9 and a compatible repeat/spacer–tracrRNA guide would have been an obvious implementation of that Cas9 targeting system. The resulting engineered DNA-targeting system falls within claims 52, 54, and 56.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9982277 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10494620 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9994831 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12049624 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12049624 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of US 10822606 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US 10487336 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11667903 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US 10787657 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11180792 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11208638 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 10570418 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 31 US 12215343 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 14 of US 10738322 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 16, and 24 of US 11401532 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 21 of US 11274318 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11279926 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of US 10793842 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-26 and 29 of US 10392607 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11085057 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of US 11873504 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18 of US 11795472 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 30 of US 10570415 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, and 10 of US 11118194 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4 and 8-10 of US 11427837 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 55, 58-63, 65 of 18/305,863 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11666666 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9 and 16 of US 10253365 B1 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of US 12319963 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11447824 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of US 11118224 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-12 and 18 of US 11248216 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of US 11180778 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-6, 8, 22 and 24 of 16/077,982 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 of US 11779657 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of US 11913017 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12285496 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of US 11730828 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of application 15/547,418 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16 and 19 of US 11091780 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US 11453866 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of US11371031B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of US11371031B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 of US 12310997 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 or 9-11 of US 11530421 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 14 of US 11008555 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of US 12011488 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 43 of application 18/169681 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11 of US 12497601 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-14 of US 12415993 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4 of US 11649442 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 and 22-23 of US 11649443 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 and 22-23 of US 12227753 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 and 22-23 of US 11332727 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of US 11745179 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 10 of US 11760984 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US 12622419 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 11-13 of US 11779653 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 28 of US 12644145 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of 17/270,832 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, and 21-23 of US 12275964 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 20 of US 12275964 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US 12227547 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 17-20, 26-28 and 52-57 of US 12577625 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of US 12215377 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US 12440839 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of US 12286623 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of US 12270027 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of US 11584930 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of US 12031147 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 of US 12312614 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of US 12735720 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-11 of US 12492411 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of US 12163148 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of US 12593767 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of US 11453891 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of US 11453891 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11840725 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Claims 52–58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 21 of US 12454685 B2 in view of Zhang (WO 2020/033601 A1).
The claims of patent recite a CRISPR/Cas system comprising a CRISPR-associated protein and a guide RNA having a target-complementary sequence. The presently claimed subject matter differs, inter alia, by requiring the CRISPR-associated protein to comprise an amino-acid sequence having at least 95% identity to one of SEQ ID NOs:1–50, and, in claim 53, by requiring a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs:1–50.
Zhang teaches the same type of CRISPR/Cas system and expressly discloses Laceyella sediminis Cas12b as SEQ ID NO:392. Zhang SEQ ID NO:392 is identical to applicant's SEQ ID NO:2. It therefore would have been obvious to use Zhang's known L. sediminis Cas12b as the CRISPR-associated protein in the system claimed in patent, because Zhang teaches that protein for precisely the same RNA-guided nucleic-acid-targeting purpose. Such substitution would predictably provide the system of claim 52 and, because the sequence is identical, the system of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54, Zhang teaches that the guide sequence hybridizes to a target DNA sequence.
Regarding claim 55, Zhang teaches modification of the target by cleavage and specifically reports DNA-interference activity for LsCas12b.
Regarding claim 56, Zhang teaches an embodiment in which tracrRNA is fused to the crRNA at the 5′ end of the direct repeat.
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Zhang teaches delivery of the Cas12b system and expressly identifies liposomes as suitable delivery vehicles. Thus, to the extent these limitations are not expressly recited in the claims of patent, Zhang establishes that they were known, predictable implementations of the CRISPR/Cas system and would not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY N GROOMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3771. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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, Jennifer Dunston can be reached at 571-272-2916. 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.
/TIFFANY NICOLE GROOMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1637
Prosecution Insights