DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25-27, 31-33, 35, 36, and 38 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s preliminary amendment to the claims, filed April 8, 2026, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed April 8, 2026, is acknowledged.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 27, 31, and 32, and the species of SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 5 in the reply filed April 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25, 26, 33, 35, 36, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 8, 2026.
Priority
This application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 as a national stage of international application PCT/US2021/047937, filed August 27, 2021, which claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) to Chinese application PCT/CN2020/111677, filed August 27, 2020. A certified copy of the foreign priority document has been filed in this application on February 21, 2023.
Specification/Informalities
The specification is objected to for disclosing sequences that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2), yet the application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825. See paragraph [0047] disclosing the amino acid sequence GPSNDQEKR. To be in compliance, applicants should identify nucleotide sequences of at least 10 nucleotides and amino acid sequences of at least 4 amino acids in the specification by a proper sequence identifier, i.e., “SEQ ID NO:” (see MPEP 2422.01). If these sequences have not been listed in the computer readable form and paper copy of the sequence listing, applicant must provide an initial computer readable form (CRF) copy of the “Sequence Listing”, an initial paper copy of the “Sequence Listing”, as well as an amendment directing its entry into the specification, and a statement that the content of the paper and CRF copies are the same and, where applicable, include no new matter as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.821(e) or 1.821(f) or 1.821(g) or 1.821(b) or 1.825(d).
Drawings
According to 37 CFR 1.84(u):
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
(2) Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.
The drawings filed February 21, 2023 are objected to because the view numbers are preceded by “Figure,” however, view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to in the recitation of “isolated polypeptide or active fragment thereof having lysozyme activity” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “isolated polypeptide having lysozyme activity or an enzymatically active fragment thereof
Claim 1 is also objected to in the recitation of “wherein the polypeptide has at least 65%” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “wherein the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide has at least 65%.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 27 (claims 31 and 32 dependent therefrom) is indefinite in the recitation of “(iii) optionally, at least one additional polypeptide…and (iv) a surfactant” because it is unclear as to whether the term “optionally” is intended to apply only to the component (iii) or is intended to apply to both the components (iii) and (iv). If applicant intends for the term “optionally” to apply only to the component (iii), it is suggested that the phrase “(iii) optionally, at least one additional polypeptide…and (iv) a surfactant” be amended to recite “(iii) a surfactant; and (iv) optionally, at least one additional polypeptide…”
Claim 27 (claims 31 and 32 dependent therefrom) is indefinite in the recitation of “(e.g. deoxyribonucleases and ribonucleases)” because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in the parenthetical phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 32 is indefinite in the recitation of “anti-tarnish and/or anti-corrosion agents, alkalinity sources, solubilizing agents, carriers, processing aids, pigments, and pH control agents” because it is unclear as to whether the conjunction “and/or” is intended to apply only to the alternatives of “anti-tarnish” and “anti-corrosion agents” or is intended to apply to all alternatives following the “and/or” conjunction. In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider amending the noted phrase to recite “anti-tarnish agents, anti-corrosion agents, alkalinity sources, solubilizing agents, carriers, processing aids, pigments, and pH control agents.”
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 1, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant’s attention is directed to the "Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products”, released on December 16, 2014.
Claim 1
Claim Interpretation: Claim 1 is drawn to an isolated polypeptide or active fragment thereof having lysozyme activity, wherein the polypeptide has at least 65% sequence identity with the amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 and 5.
According to the sequence listing, SEQ ID NO: 1 is the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide from Coprinopsis sclerotiger and SEQ ID NO: 5 is the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide from Thielavia antarctica. Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 encompasses a naturally-occurring lysozyme.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claim is drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites a naturally occurring polypeptide, which is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). The polypeptide of claim 1 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, the polypeptide of claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claim only recites the product of nature, without more and does not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 27, 31, and 32
Claim 27 is drawn to a detergent composition comprising:
(i) the polypeptide of claim 1;
(ii) a polypeptide having protease activity;
(iii) optionally, at least one additional polypeptide, where the at least one additional polypeptide is an enzyme selected from: acyl transferases, alpha-amylases, beta-amylases, alpha-galactosidases, arabinosidases, aryl esterases, beta-galactosidases, carrageenases, catalases, cellobiohydrolases, cellulases, chondroitinases, cutinases, endo-beta-1,4-glucanases, endo-beta-mannanases, esterases, exo-mannanases, feruloyl esterase, galactanases, glucoamylases, hemicellulases, hexosaminidases, hyaluronidases, keratinases, laccases, lactases, ligninases, lipases, lipoxygenases, mannanases, metalloproteases, nucleases (e.g. deoxyribonucleases and ribonucleases), oxidases, oxidoreductases, pectate lyases, pectin acetyl esterases, pectinases, pentosanases, perhydrolases, peroxidases, phenoloxidases, phosphatases, phospholipases, phytases, polygalacturonases, polyesterases, proteases, pullulanases, reductases, rhamnogalacturonases, beta-glucanases, tannases, transglutaminases, xylan acetyl-esterases, xylanases, xyloglucanases, xylosidases, and any combination or mixture thereof; and
(iv) a surfactant.
Claim 31 is drawn to the composition of claim 27, wherein the nuclease is a DNase.
Since the “at least one additional polypeptide” including nucleases in claim 27 is optional, the prior art need not teach the nuclease of claim 31 and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, a nuclease is not a required component of the composition of claim 31. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 32 is drawn to the composition of claim 27, wherein the composition further comprises one or more adjunct materials selected from the group consisting of builders, bleaches, bleach activators, bleach catalysts, other enzymes, enzyme stabilizing systems, chelants, optical brighteners, soil release polymers, dye transfer agents, dispersants, suds suppressors, dyes, perfumes, colorants, filler salts, hydrotropes, photoactivators, fluorescers, fabric conditioners, hydrolyzable surfactants, preservatives, anti-oxidants, anti-shrinkage agents, anti-wrinkle agents, germicides, fungicides, color speckles, silvercare, anti-tarnish and/or anti-corrosion agents, alkalinity sources, solubilizing agents, carriers, processing aids, pigments, and pH control agents.
The specification describes “detergent composition” as a composition intended for use in a wash medium (e.g. a wash liquor) for the cleaning of soiled or dirty objects, including particular textile or non-textile objects or items (paragraph [0091]).
The recitation of “detergent composition” in the preamble of claim 27 is interpreted as an intended use or purpose of the claimed composition and does not further limit the structure and/or function of the claimed composition.
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the indefiniteness of claim 27, the only required components of the composition of claims 27, 31, and 32 are a polypeptide having lysozyme activity and having an amino acid sequence having at least 65% sequence identity with the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 5 and a polypeptide having protease activity.
As stated above, according to the sequence listing, SEQ ID NO: 1 is the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide from Coprinopsis sclerotiger and SEQ ID NO: 5 is the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide from Thielavia antarctica.
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the polypeptides of the detergent composition of claims 27, 31, and 32 encompass a naturally-occurring lysozyme and a naturally-occurring protease and the detergent composition of claims 27, 31, and 32 encompasses a composition of naturally-occurring polypeptides.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claims are drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite a composition comprising a combination of naturally occurring components, which is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). There is no evidence of record of a naturally occurring counterpart to the claimed composition, so the composition is compared to the individual components as they occur in nature (see MPEP 2106.04(c).II.A). There is no indication in the specification or evidence of record that the individual components have any characteristics (structural, functional, or otherwise) that are different from the corresponding individual components as each occurs in nature. Furthermore, there is no indication in the specification or evidence of record that combining these components changes the structure, function, or other properties of the naturally occurring components. In other words, the overall combination of polypeptides does not render the resulting composition different from each of the individual polypeptides. Thus, the detergent composition of claims 27, 31, and 32 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, the detergent composition of claims 27, 31, and 32 is directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recite the products of nature, without more and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. For these reasons the claim is rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163.II.A.2.(a).i) states, “Whether the specification shows that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention”.
For claims drawn to a genus, MPEP § 2163 states the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
According to MPEP 2163.II.A.3.(a).ii), [s]atisfactory disclosure of a ‘representative number’ depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus…Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are ‘representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,’ or by the establishment of ‘a reasonable structure-function correlation.’"
The factors considered in the Written Description requirement are (1) level of skill and knowledge in the art, (2) partial structure, (3) physical and/or chemical properties, (4) functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the (5) method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient." MPEP § 2163.
The claims are drawn to or recite a genus of isolated polypeptides or active fragments thereof having lysozyme activity, wherein the members of the genus comprise amino acid sequences having at least 65% sequence identity with the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 5.
Given that the genus of recited polypeptides includes species having amino acid modifications of up to 35% of the amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 1, the genus is considered to encompass polypeptides with widely variant amino acid sequences.
The specification discloses the following two representative species of the genus of recited polypeptides – a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 5.
Regarding the level of skill and knowledge in the art of amino acid modification, the reference of Singh et al. (Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 18:1-11, 2017; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) reviews various protein engineering methods and discloses that despite the availability of an ever-growing database of protein structures and highly sophisticated computational algorithms, protein engineering is still limited by the incomplete understanding of protein functions, folding, flexibility, and conformational changes (see p. 7, column 1, top). The unpredictability associated with amino acid modification is exemplified by the reference of Zhang et al. (Structure 26:1474-1485, 2018; cited on the attached Form PTO-892), which discloses that even a mutation that was predicted to be benign caused significant structural changes and unexpected effects on the function of a polypeptide (p. 1475, column 1). In view of Singh et al. and Zhang et al., one of skill in the art would recognize a high level of unpredictability in the art of amino acid modification.
Given that the specification discloses only two representative species of a widely variant genus of polypeptides, and there is a high level of unpredictability in the art of amino acid modification, the two disclosed representative species are considered to be insufficient to describe the widely variant genus. One of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to describe the genus, and thus, that the applicant was not in possession of the recited genus. The claimed subject matter is not supported by an adequate written description because a representative number of species has not been described.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Storm et al. (WO 2019/170682 A1; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Storm”).
Regarding instant claim 1, Storm teaches a muramidase from Trichocladium asperum comprising SEQ ID NO: 46 (p. 8, lines 1-2). SEQ ID NO: 46 of Storm has 91% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 5 (see Appendix for sequence alignment). Storm teaches the term “muramidase” is alternatively referred to as “lysozyme” (paragraph bridging pp. 11-12).
Therefore, Storm anticipates claim 1 as written.
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.
Claims 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm in view of Schnorr, K. (U.S. Patent No. 9,663,775 B2; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Schnorr”).
The relevant teachings of Storm as applied to claim 1 are set forth above. Storm does not teach or suggest a detergent composition as recited in claims 27, 31, and 32.
Regarding instant claims 27 and 32, Schnorr teaches use of lysozymes has been suggested in detergents (paragraph bridging columns 1-2). Schnorr acknowledges the use of a lysozyme as a component of a detergent composition, which may comprise one or more other enzymes such as a protease and a lipase (column 35, lines 47-63) and may comprise one or more surfactants (column 36, lines 29-30).
In view of the combined teachings of Storm and Schnorr, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the lysozyme of Storm in a detergent composition taught by Schnorr. One would have been motivated and would have expected success to do so because Schnorr taught use of lysozymes has been suggested in detergents and Schnorr acknowledges the use of a lysozyme as a component of a detergent composition including a protease and surfactant.
Regarding instant claim 31, since the “at least one additional polypeptide” including “nucleases” in claim 27 is optional, the prior art need not teach the nuclease of claim 31. See MPEP 2111.04.
Therefore, the detergent composition of claims 27, 31, and 32 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25-27, 31-33, 35, 36, and 38 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25, 26, 33, 35, 36, and 38 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, MANJUNATH N RAO can be reached on 571-272-0939. 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
APPENDIX
BGT03885
ID BGT03885 standard; protein; 242 AA.
XX
AC BGT03885;
XX
DT 31-OCT-2019 (first entry)
XX
DE Trichocladium asperum mature muramidase, SEQ ID 46.
XX
KW N-acetylmuramide glycanhydrolase; feed-additive; feedstuff; lysozyme;
KW muramidase.
XX
OS Trichocladium asperum.
XX
CC PN WO2019170682-A1.
XX
CC PD 12-SEP-2019.
XX
CC PF 05-MAR-2019; 2019WO-EP055458.
XX
PR 05-MAR-2018; 2018EP-00159964.
XX
CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS.
XX
CC PI Storm AC, Kofod LV;
XX
DR WPI; 2019-78347A/75.
XX
CC PT Ruminant feed composition, such as ruminant feed, ruminant feed
CC PT supplement, or ruminant feed additive, for improving Energy Corrected
CC PT Milk production of a ruminant comprises muramidases.
XX
CC PS Example 4; SEQ ID NO 46; 108pp; English.
XX
CC The present invention relates to a ruminant feed composition useful for
CC improving the energy corrected milk (ECM) production of a ruminant. The
CC ruminant feed composition such as ruminant feed, ruminant feed supplement
CC or ruminant feed additive comprising muramidases. The invention further
CC discloses: (1) a method for improving the energy corrected milk (ECM)
CC production of a ruminant; and (2) a method for increasing dry matter
CC digestibility (DMd) of a ruminant feed, ruminant feed supplement or
CC ruminant feed additive.
XX
SQ Sequence 242 AA;
Query Match 91.3%; Score 1170; Length 242;
Best Local Similarity 89.7%;
Matches 217; Conservative 12; Mismatches 13; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 YLITGDTVNCRSGPGTSYAVKKTYTKGQDVKISCQQAGTSVDGNNIWDKTQDGCFVADRY 60
||||| ||||||||||||||||:||||||||||||||||||:||||||||||||:|||:|
Db 1 YLITGTTVNCRSGPGTSYAVKKSYTKGQDVKISCQQAGTSVEGNNIWDKTQDGCYVADKY 60
Qy 61 VKTGVAGYVTEKCGVKTCAAPAVNQATVDLIAEFEGFRASVYIDATGHPTVGYGHLCTQA 120
||||| |||| |||| || || || ||||||||||||||::| ||||||||||||||||:
Db 61 VKTGVDGYVTSKCGVTTCTAPKVNAATVDLIAEFEGFRANIYTDATGHPTVGYGHLCTQS 120
Qy 121 KCAEVKYKIPLSQADGKKLLADDIKNYEKCVTSMANSNAKLNANQYGAVVSFTFNLGCGA 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 KCAEVKYKIPLSQADGKKLLADDIKKYEKCVTSMAKSKAKLNANQYGAVVSFTFNLGCGA 180
Qy 181 AQGSQMMKRLNAGENPNTVIANEFPKWVYGNGKVLPGLVRRRDAEVALAKKATSTAAIPP 240
|:||||||||| ||||||||||||||||:||| |||||||||:||:|||||||||||:||
Db 181 AEGSQMMKRLNNGENPNTVIANEFPKWVHGNGAVLPGLVRRRNAEIALAKKATSTAALPP 240
Qy 241 KC 242
||
Db 241 KC 242
Prosecution Insights