DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of claim rejections
The rejections of record under 35 USC 112(a) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments in the response filed 06/05/2026.
The rejections of record under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments in the response filed 06/05/2026.
The rejections of record under 35 USC 103 are maintained and modified in view of Applicant’s amendments in the response filed 06/05/2026.
Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
First rejection
Claims 2 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (see also IDS 08/15/2023; prior art of record), in view of Zhang et al (De Novo Engineering of Corynebacterium glutamicum for L-Proline Production. ACS Synth Biol. 2020 Jul 17;9(7):1897-1906. doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.0c00249. Epub 2020 Jul 6. Erratum in: ACS Synth Biol. 2020 Oct 16;9(10):2856; hereinafter “Zhang”; prior art of record).
Note a copy of the Yang article is also furnished with this rejection.
Yang teaches an amino acid export carrier protein (i.e., a polypeptide of A) as in claim 2) that has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 (see alignment below). Yang also teaches that the protein is produced by (i.e., expressed by) C. glutamicum strain ATCC 13869 derived from soil (see pg. 2, col 1, of Yang and portion of Yang reproduced below; a strain expresses the polypeptide of A as in claim 2). Yang also teaches C. glutamicum can be modified in various ways to make it more useful for humans through classical strain breeding methods have been used to introduce mutations into the C. glutamicum genome based on random mutation and screening/selection techniques, and can be used to generate glutamate (as well as other amino acids, such as lysine) hyper producing strains (i.e., compared to a parent strain; see pg. 2, col 1, paragraph 2). Yang further teaches that because C. glutamicum strains are widely used for the industrial production of amino acids, and C. glutamicum strains could be useful for the industrial production of glutamate, arginine, or proline (see pg. 10, col 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
1598
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make a strain of C. glutamicum that hyper-produces (i.e., over-expresses) L-proline as taught by Yang to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Yang explicitly teaches a strain capable of producing the claimed polypeptide and that metabolic engineering of the strain can advantageously be used to generate proline hyper-producing strains.
Yang does not explicitly teach a glutamate kinase in the bacterium is not subject to feedback inhibition (as in claim 1), comprises a G149K mutation (as in claim 13) or the expression of at least one enzyme selected from the group consisting of a glutamate kinase, a glutamate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase an a pyrroline-5- carboxylate reductase in the bacterium is increased compared to a parent strain (as in claim 14).
However, Zhang teaches de novo engineering of C. glutamicum for L-proline production (see abstract; title). Specifically, Zhang teaches mutagenesis of C. glutamicum to create an industrial hyper-L-proline-producing strain (i.e., enhance the production of proline in the strain) by including various mutations: 1) overexpression of a feedback inhibition resistant gamma-glutamate kinase proB G149K mutant (as in claim 13; increased expression of glutamate kinase as in claim 14), 2) deletion of proline dehydrogenase to block L-proline degradation, 3) overexpression of glutamate dehydrogenase to increase glutamate synthesis flux, 4) the mutation of 6-phosphate gluconate dehydrogenase and glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase in the pentose phosphate pathway to enhance NADPH supply, 5) the deletion of pyruvate aminotransferase to decrease the byproduct L-alanine synthesis, and 6) weakening of α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase to regulate the TCA cycle (see abstract; see also Fig 2-3; pg. 1900, col 1-2; Fig. 5; pg. 1902, col 1-2). Zhang teaches that the L-proline titer of the final strain ZQJY-9 (the C. glutamicum strain containing all 6 mutations including G149K mutation see abstract and Fig. 6) reached 120.18 g/L at 76 h with the highest productivity of 1.581 g/L/h in the bioreactor (see Fig. 6; see pg. 1903, col 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the strain of Yang by using the de novo mutagenesis protocol of Zhang to create an industrial hyper-L-proline-producing strain of C. glutamicum and arrive at the claimed invention. As Yang teaches a strain of Corynebacterium capable of producing an amino acid export carrier polypeptide (i.e., for producing L-proline) and Zhang teaches de novo engineering of C. glutamicum for L-proline production, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the engineering strategy of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Zhang teaches that mutation strategies, such as overexpression of a feedback inhibition resistant gamma-glutamate kinase mutant containing the G149K mutation is advantageously capable of creating industrial hyper-L-proline-producing strain of Corynebacterium.
Regarding claims 10-12, Yang teaches using C. glutamicum (i.e., a bacterium in claim 10, Corynebcterium in claim 11, and C. glutamicum in claim 12).
Second rejection
Claim 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Zhang in view of Nakanishi et al (US4444885A; published 04/24/1984; hereinafter “Nakanishi”).
As discussed above, Yang teaches production of a polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 (i.e., expression of the polypeptide) by C. glutamicum strain ATCC 13869 derived from soil (see Yang reproduced below; a strain expresses the polypeptide of A).
None of the references explicitly teach culturing the strain to produce L-proline.
However, Nakanishi teaches a method for producing L-proline from, for example, Corynebacterium, using fermentation (see claim 1; abstract). Nakanishi specifically teaches improved production of the yield of L-proline during fermentation without addition of any surfactant to the mediums (see Example 1; Table 1, Example 3-4). The mediums contained sodium L-glutamate, pyrrolidonecarboxylic acid, peptone, meat extract, yeast extract, sodium chloride, molasses, soybean meal hydrolysate, etc. (see Example 1; Table 1, Example 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the strain of Yang and Zhang by using the culturing method of Nakanishi and arrive at the claimed invention. As Yang teaches a strain of Corynebacterium capable of producing an amino acid export carrier polypeptide (i.e., for producing L-proline) and Nakanishi teaches successful production of L-proline using culturing/fermentation conditions, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the method of Nakanishi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Nakanishi explicitly teaches that the culturing method advantageously improves yield of L-proline during fermentation without addition of any surfactant to the mediums.
Regarding claim 20, Nakanishi teaches recovery of L-proline from the fermented broths (see col 3, lines 33-36).
Accordingly, the claimed inventions were prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Third rejection
Claim 5, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Zhang in view of Shibasaki et al (Construction of a novel hydroxyproline-producing recombinant Escherichia coli by introducing a proline 4-hydroxylase gene. J Biosci Bioeng. 2000, 90 (5): 522-525; hereinafter “Shibasaki”; prior art of record).
Yang teaches a polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 from C. glutamicum strain ATCC 13869 derived from soil (see portion of Yang reproduced above).
None of the references explicitly teach a host cell to produce hydroxyproline wherein the expression level of the polypeptide having L-proline efflux function is decreased in the host cell and wherein the expression level of a proline hydroxylase is increased.
However, Shibasaki teaches construction of a novel hydroxyproline-producing recombinant E. coli (a host cell for producing hydroxyproline as in claim 5; see title; abstract). Shibasaki explicitly teaches that the strain was created by introducing a proline-4-hydoxylase gene (i.e., increasing expression level of a proline hydroxylase as in claim 5) into an L-proline producing E. coli (see abstract; see pg. 522, col 1). Shibasaki teaches that the recombinant E. coli expresses a mutated proB gene that encodes a feedback-resistant glutamate kinase that causes overexpression of L-proline (wherein a glutamate kinase I the host cell is not subject to feedback inhibition by L-proline; see pg. 522, col 1; Fig. 1). Shibasaki teaches that the W1485 mutant carrying either the pPF1+pWFH1 or pPF2+pWFH1 plasmids (each carrying the proB mutant and proline-4-hydroxylase gene, respectively) produced little to no L-proline but was capable of producing hydroxyproline (see pg. 523, Table 1; pg. 524, col 1, paragraph 1-2). Shibasaki teaches reduction or elimination of L-proline production in the host cell (see pg. 523, Table 1; pg. 524, col 1, paragraph 1-2),
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the polypeptide of Yang and Zhang by using the host cell and the mutagenesis protocol of Shibasaki to arrive at the claimed invention. As Yang teaches an amino acid export carrier polypeptide (i.e., for producing L-proline) and Shibasaki teaches an E. coli host cell for production of hydroxyproline via introducing a proline-4-hydoxylase gene into the cell, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Shibasaki explicitly teaches that L-proline can be advantageously reduced or eliminated to increase hydroxyproline production in a recombinant host cell via metabolic pathway engineering.
Regarding independent claim 7 and claim 21, Shibasaki teaches culturing of the E. coli host cell to produce hydroxyproline as well as accumulation of the hydroxyproline in the fermentation broth (see pg. 523, col 2, paragraph 2; pg. 524, col 1-2).
Fifth rejection
Claim 6, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Zhang, and Shibasaki as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sun et al (CN107674863A; published 02/09/2018; hereinafter “Sun”; prior art of record). Please note that the Sun reference is originally in Chinese. The rejection set forth below is based on the English translation, which has been furnished with the rejection.
As discussed above, claim 5 was rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Yang, Zhang and Shibasaki.
The difference between Yang, Shibasaki, and the instant claims is that neither reference explicitly teaches the proline hydroxylase is trans-4-proline hydroxylase having a nucleotide sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 5 (as in claim 6).
However, Sun teaches the use of trans-4-proline hydroxylase to produce trans-4-hydroxyproline (i.e., hydroxyproline) (see abstract; claim 1-10). Specifically, Sun teaches that proline 4-hydroxylase can be expressed in L-proline producing bacteria and has high catalytic activity, which allows for industrial production of trans-4-hydroxy-L-proline (see pg. 2, paragraph 4). Sun teaches the cloning and expression of a nucleotide sequence of trans-4-proline hydroxylase (see pg. 6, Example/Embodiment 1) in E. coli before subsequent production and purification of hydroxyproline (see Example 4 and Table 4). The nucleotide sequence of Sun, SEQ ID NO: 2, has 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 5 (see alignment below):
PNG
media_image2.png
1672
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the hydroxyproline producing strain of Yang, Zhang and Shibasaki by including the trans-4-proline hydroxylase of Sun to arrive at the claimed invention. As Yang, Zhang, and Shibasaki teach (in combination) increased hydroxyproline production in a recombinant host cell expressing proline-4-hydroxylase and Sun teaches a sequence of trans-4-proline hydroxylase capable of being expressed in recombinant cells to produce hydroxyproline, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the trans-4-proline hydroxylase of Sun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Sun explicitly teaches that the proline 4-hydroxylase can be expressed in L-proline producing bacteria, has high catalytic activity, and allows for industrial production of trans-4-hydroxy-L-proline.
Regarding claim 15-17, Yang teaches using C. glutamicum bacterium (see above). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the C. glutamicum strain as a host cell as a simple substitution of one known element (the E. coli of Shibasaki or Sun) for another (the C. glutamicum of Yang) with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because the references teach that host cells such as E. coli and C. glutamicum are both useful for the production of amino acids, such as proline and hydroxyproline.
Regarding claim 19, Shibasaki teaches that the recombinant E. coli expresses a mutated proB gene that encodes a feedback-resistant glutamate kinase (i.e., increased expression of glutamate kinase; see above).
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Sixth rejection
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Zhang and Shibasaki as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wen et al (CN109810989B).
As discussed above, claim 5 was rendered prima facie obvious by the combined teachings of Yang, Zhang and Shibasaki.
None of the references explicitly teaches the glutamate kinase in the host cell comprises a G149D mutation.
However, Wen teaches methods of preparation/production of hydroxyproline using recombinant Coryneform bacteria, including C. glutamicum (see pg. 3, paragraph 5). Wen teaches expression of 5-phosphoglutamate kinase (i.e., glutamate kinase) coding gene in the bacteria, where the kinase has undergone site-directed mutagenesis to mutate the glycine at position 149 to aspartic acid (i.e., a G149D mutation as claimed) (see pg. 3). Wen teaches several advantages to using the recombinant strain, including short fermentation period, easiness in process and cost control, and observation of the effect of improving the yield by superposition, so that the recombinant strain can be practically used for producing hydroxyproline by bacterial fermentation (see pg. 3, paragraph 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the method of producing hydroxyproline as taught by Yang, Zhang and Shibasaki by including the G149D mutation as taught by Wen to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Wen explicitly teaches that the recombinant strain containing the mutation advantageously has short fermentation period, easiness in process and cost control, and observation of the effect of improving the yield by superposition, so that the recombinant strain can be practically used for producing hydroxyproline by bacterial fermentation.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 05/21/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims as set forth in the last Office action for the reasons set forth below.
On pg. 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Yang and Zhang to combine the claimed modifications. Applicant argues that Yang merely discloses sequence of thrE protein but fails to suggest its role in L-proline efflux or over expressing it to increase proline yield. Applicant argues that Zhang focuses on modifying intracellular biosynthetic pathway to increase proline production and a PHOSITA reading Zhang would focus on intracellular metabolic flux not efflux pumps. Applicant argues that the combination of the claimed genetic modifications produces unexpected and highly superior results documented in the specification and Declaration filed 05/21/2026 (given its fullest consideration); pointing to Table 6 which shows 2.56 fold increase in proline production compared to a strain with an empty plasmid.
In response, the examiner disagrees. First, as discussed in the previous Office Action, “for producing L-proline/hydroxyproline” have been interpreted to be intended uses of the polypeptide, strain, and host cell. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation") (see MPEP 2111.02). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Second, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The claimed strain requires the expression of the polypeptide of A or B, which is taught by Yang (see above) and a glutamate kinase in a strain not subject to feedback inhibition (which is taught by Zhang) to produce L-proline. Yang also provides a PHOSITA the teaching, suggestion, and motivation to hyper-produce amino acids like proline using C. glutamicum via genetic/metabolic engineering (see above). The prior art provides a PHOSITA various teachings to create strains that produce both L-proline and hydroxyproline through culturing methods that advantageously improves yield of L-proline during fermentation without addition of any surfactant to the mediums (see Nakanishi above), 1) overexpression of a feedback inhibition resistant gamma-glutamate kinase proB G149K mutant, 2) deletion of proline dehydrogenase to block L-proline degradation, 3) overexpression of glutamate dehydrogenase to increase glutamate synthesis flux, 4) the mutation of 6-phosphate gluconate dehydrogenase and glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase in the pentose phosphate pathway to enhance NADPH supply, 5) the deletion of pyruvate aminotransferase to decrease the byproduct L-alanine synthesis, and 6) weakening of α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase to regulate the TCA cycle (see Zhang above), reducing or eliminating L-proline production to increase hydroxyproline production in a recombinant host cell via metabolic pathway engineering (see Shibasaki above), the use of G149D mutation in glutamate kinase to efficiently produce hydroxyproline in C. glutamicum (see Wen), and a sequence of trans-4-proline hydroxylase capable of being expressed in recombinant cells to produce hydroxyproline (see Sun above).
Third, regarding Applicant’s “unexpected results” as argued in the Declaration, which was fully considered, Applicant’s results seem to be in line with the explicit teachings of the prior art for much of the same reasons as set forth above (which will not be repeated here). "A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue." In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately (i.e., demonstrating "synergism"). Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). However, a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). In the instant case, the evidence provided does not overcome the rejections because Yang teaches a C. glutamicum that produces SEQ ID NO: 1 and suggests the mutation of the strain to hyperproduce proline (as instantly claimed) and Zhang provides one of ordinary skill the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to also include a feedback inhibition-resistant glutamate kinase to increase L-proline efflux in C. glutamicum as instantly claimed.
On pg. 9-10, regarding claim 5 and its dependents, Applicant argues that claim 5 requires 3 distinct genetic modifications and that the combination of Yang, Shibasaki and Sun is impermissible hindsight. Applicant argues that Shibasaki provides no specific guidance on which gene or protein should be targeted to achieve decreased L-proline production/efflux, while Applicant discovered and disclosed that SEQ ID NO: 1-2 function as an efflux pump. Applicant urges that without Applicant’s disclosure, a PHOSITA would not have selected the protein of Yang for deletion or downregulation to produce hydroxyproline. Applicant then points to Table 7 of the specification to argue unexpected results of the downregulation of thrE and G149D mutation to yield reduced L-proline byproduct and improved ratio of hydroxyproline to L-proline.
In response, the examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the combined prior art references (without Applicant’s disclosure) provided various teachings to create strains that produce both L-proline and hydroxyproline through culturing methods that advantageously improves yield of L-proline during fermentation without addition of any surfactant to the mediums (see Nakanishi above), 1) overexpression of a feedback inhibition resistant gamma-glutamate kinase proB G149K mutant, 2) deletion of proline dehydrogenase to block L-proline degradation, 3) overexpression of glutamate dehydrogenase to increase glutamate synthesis flux, 4) the mutation of 6-phosphate gluconate dehydrogenase and glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase in the pentose phosphate pathway to enhance NADPH supply, 5) the deletion of pyruvate aminotransferase to decrease the byproduct L-alanine synthesis, and 6) weakening of α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase to regulate the TCA cycle (see Zhang above), reducing or eliminating L-proline production to increase hydroxyproline production in a recombinant host cell via metabolic pathway engineering (see Shibasaki above), the use of G149D mutation in glutamate kinase to efficiently produce hydroxyproline in C. glutamicum (see Wen), and a sequence of trans-4-proline hydroxylase capable of being expressed in recombinant cells to produce hydroxyproline (see Sun above). Thus, the rejections are maintained and modified as set forth above.
Conclusion
NO CLAIMS ALLOWED.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGIANA C REGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0995. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00am-2:00pm.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/G.C.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/THOMAS J. VISONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights