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 .
1. Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 17, 20, 27, 28, and 33 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1, 3 – 8, and 10 – 15) in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims of Groups I – V do not lack unity of invention as they are linked by a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art because Applicant has amended claim 1 to require “comprising a P2 promoter, a P5 promoter, or a P8s promoter” and the search of the claims of Group I would provide art that is pertinent to the claims of Group II – V and therefore there is no serious search burden to search and examine the claims of Groups I – V in one application. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature recited in amended claim 1 is obvious over Lyu in view of Zhu as set forth below in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 and therefore the special technical feature of Groups I – V that are drawn to different categories does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 16, 17, 20, 27, 28, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/23/2026.
Priority
4. This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/141,837, filed on 01/26/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 07/25/2023 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
6. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
7. The drawings filed on 07/25/2023 are acknowledged.
Specification
8. It is noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
9. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “comprising” should read “wherein the promoter is” or “consisting of “ to clarify that the recited constitutive promoter is one of a P2 promoter, a P5 promoter, or a P8s promoter and not any constitutive promoter. The objection does not rise to a 112(b) rejection because it is clear that the Applicant is requiring that the constitutive promoter be one of a P2, P5, or P8 promoter based on Example 1 of Applicant’s specification and Applicant’s amendment to the claims to cancel claim 2 in the claim set dated 11/20/2024 and incorporate the limitations into claim 1 in the claims dated 01/23/2023 Appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2 and 3, each of “a sequence” should read “the sequence” to clarify that the sequence of the P2 promoter is SEQ ID NO: 12, the sequence of the P5 promoter is SEQ ID NO: 13, and the sequence of the P8s promoter is SEQ ID NO: 5 and not any sequence within the recited SEQ ID NOs. The objection does not rise to a 112(a) rejection for lack of written description because one of ordinary skill in the art would view the Applicant to have been in possession of the claimed P2, P5, and P8s promoter sequences that are SEQ ID NO: 12, 13, and 5, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “a sequence” should read “the sequence” to clarify that the Lactococccus lactis gadB has at least 80% sequence identity to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 and not 80% sequence identity to any sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1. The objection does not rise to a 112(a) lack of written description rejection because the claim requires the gadB comprises Lactococcus lactis gadB and one of ordinary skill in the art would view the Applicant to have been in possession of the claimed Lactococcus lactis gadB having at least 80% sequence identity to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 based on the disclosed SEQ ID NO: 1. Appropriate correction is required.
12. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “a sequence” should read “the sequence” to clarify that the Lactococccus lactis gadC has at least 80% sequence identity to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 and not 80% sequence identity to any sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2. The objection does not rise to a 112(a) lack of written description rejection because the claim requires gadC comprises Lactococcus lactis gadC and one of ordinary skill in the art would view the Applicant to have been in possession of the claimed Lactococcus lactis gadC having at least 80% sequence identity to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 based on the disclosed SEQ ID NO: 2. Appropriate correction is required.
13. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “and/or” should read “optionally” to clarify that the selectable marker can optionally confer erythromycin resistance. The objection does not rise to a 112(b) rejection because it is clear that the second “wherein” clause is optionally narrowing the selectable marker to one that confers erythromycin resistance. 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.
14. Claim 3 is 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.
15. Claim 3 recites “P8s promoter has a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 5 or SEQ ID NO: 6”. Applicant’s specification teaches that the sequence of P8s is SEQ ID NO: 5 and the sequence of P8 is SEQ ID NO: 6 and that P8s is a shortened version of P8. Therefore, it is unclear how P8s can have the sequences of both SEQ ID NO: 5 and SEQ ID NO: 6. For the purpose of applying prior art, the sequence of P8s is interpreted to have the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 5 based on Table 2 of Applicant’s specification at page 88.
Claim Interpretation
16. For the purpose of applying prior art, “a constitutive promoter comprising a P2 promoter, a P5 promoter, or a P8s promoter” of claim 1 is interpreted as a constitutive promoter that is either P2, P5, or P8s.
17. For the purpose of applying prior art, “P2 promoter” and “P5 promoter” of claims 1 and 3 are interpreted as a P2 or P5 promoter from Lactococcus lactis based on Applicant’s specification at page 5, para. 0022 and the “P8s promoter” is interpreted as a P8 shorter promoter from L. lactis based on Applicant’s specification at page 18, para. 0058.
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.
18. Claim(s) 1, 3 – 8, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu (Lyu, Chang-jiang, et al. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 65.4 (2017): 858-866.), hereinafter Lyu in view of Zhu (Zhu, Duolong, et al. FEMS microbiology letters 362.16 (2015): fnv107.), hereinafter Zhu which is cited on the IDS filed 07/25/2023 in view of Sanders (Sanders, Jan Willem, et al. Molecular microbiology 27.2 (1998): 299-310.), hereinafter Sanders as evidenced by AF005098 (GenBank: AF005098.1, submitted 11/15/2023), hereinafter AF005098.
Regarding claim 1, Lyu teaches a genetic construct (pMG36e-gadCB and pMG36e-gadCA) comprising a constitutive promoter that is P32 operably linked to a gene encoding a glutamic acid decarboxylase and a gene encoding a glutamate-GABA antiporter (Table 1; Figure 1; page 860, left col. para. 2; page 861, right col.; page 862, left col. para. 1). Lyu does not teach the constitutive promoter is P2, P5 or P8s.
Regarding claim 4, Lyu teaches the glutamic acid decarboxylase is gadB (Figure 1; page 860, left col. para. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Lyu teaches the glutamate/GABA antiporter is gadC (Figure 1; page 860, left col. para. 2; page 861, right col. para. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Lyu teaches the genetic construct comprises an erythromycin selectable marker (Table 1; page 859, left col. para. 4; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Lyu teaches the promoter and the genes are part of an expression cassette, pMG36e-gadCA and pMG36e-gadCB (Table 1; Figure 1). Lyu does not teach the promoter is P2, P5 or P8s.
Regarding claim 15, Lyu teaches in Figure 1 that the genetic construct comprises 5’ to 3’ the promoter, gadC and gadB. Lyu does not teach the constitutive promoter is P2, P5 or P8s.
Lyu does not teach the constitutive promoter is P2, P5 or P8s of claim 1 or the sequence of P2, P5 or P8s of claim 3 or “the gadB comprises Lactococcus lactis gadB having at least 80% sequence identity to a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1” of claim 5 or “the gadC comprises Lactococcus lactis gadC having at least 80% sequence identity to a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2” of claim 7. However, Lyu teaches the gadCB and gadCA genetic constructs when transformed in lactic acid bacteria (LAB) improve GABA production in Table 3. Lyu teaches LAB are used for the production of consumer-accepted fermented food products, probiotic products, and biologically active supplements and new applications of LAB include the production of pharmaceutical agents and the delivery of oral vaccines (page 858, left col. para. 1). Lyu teaches LAB usually encounter various environmental stresses and to meet these challenges LAB should exert strong physiological robustness and fitness in addition to excellent metabolic capabilities (page 858, left col. para. 1). Lyu teaches physiology-oriented engineering has emerged as a discipline that focuses on the rational improvement of physiological performances of industrial useful strains (page 858, left col. para. 1). Lyu teaches adaptation and tolerance to acid stress are important factors for LAB as lactic acid is the main catabolism product, which acidifies the media and arrests cell multiplication (page 858, left col. para. 2). Lyu teaches the glutamate decarboxylase system (GAD) consumes intracellular protons through the decarboxylation of glutamate in the cytoplasm and exchange of the reaction product GABA with extracellular glutamate, which efficiently works to protect cells from the acid stress that is encountered during food fermentation and gastrointestinal transit (page 858, right col. para. 1). Lyu teaches GABA is a bioactive component in various functional foods and pharmaceuticals due to its potential in controlling neurotransmitter signals and lowering blood pressure in humans (page 858, right col. para. 2). Lyu teaches the development of strategies for efficient and cost-effective production of GABA become an important issue to meet its increasing commercial demand (page 858, right col. para. 2). Lyu teaches LAB are the most practical microorganisms for GABA production, some of which could catalyze the decarboxylation of glutamate in the proton-consuming reaction, thus contributing to the pH homeostasis within the cells and resulting in a stoichiometric release of the functional product GABA (page 859, left col. para. 1). Lyu teaches more attention should be paid to the possibility as to whether the acid stress response mechanisms in LAB could be employed to develop cell factories with improved GABA production efficiency and effectual control and directional regulation of the proton homeostasis would be a prerequisite for exerting the expected characteristics in GABA production (page 859, left col. para. 2 – 3).
Regarding “a P2 promoter, a P5 promoter, or a P8s promoter” of claim 1 and SEQ ID NO: 12, 13, and 6 of claim 3, Zhu teaches P2, P5, and P8 promoters from the LAB Lactococcus lactis (claim 1) and their sequences in Figure 1 where the sequence of P5 in Figure 1 is SEQ ID NO: 13 as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
346
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhu teaches that the P8, P5, and P2 promoters show higher transcriptional efficiency than the P32 promoter (page 5, left col. para. 2; Figure 3; Table 2; Abstract).
Zhu does not teach “the gadB comprises Lactococcus lactis gadB having at least 80% sequence identity to a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1” of claim 5 and “the gadC comprises Lactococcus lactis gadC having at least 80% sequence identity to a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2” of claim 7. However, Zhu teaches Lactococcus lactis is the model LAB and is a good candidate for heterologous protein production (page 1, right col. para. 1). Zhu teaches Lactococcus lactis can be delivered in vivo with the expression of pharmaceutical protein at a mucosal level and it can be used for clinical therapeutics in humans (page 1, right col. para. 1). One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lyu and Zhu and substitute the P32 promoter of Lyu with the P2, P5, or P8 promoter of Zhu because Zhu teaches the P2, P5, and P8 promoters have higher transcriptional efficiency compared to the P32 promoter.
Regarding “the gadB comprises Lactococcus lactis gadB having at least 80% sequence identity to a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1” of claim 5 and “the gadC comprises Lactococcus lactis gadC having at least 80% sequence identity to a sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2” of claim 7, Sanders teaches genetic constructs containing gadC and gadB from Lactococcus lactis where the sequences have been assigned GenBank accession number AF005098 (page 308, left col. para. 2; Figure 1; Table 3). Sanders teaches the sequence of gadC in Figure 3 which has at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 as shown below, where “Qy” is SEQ ID NO: 2 of claim 7 and “Db” is Sanders’ gadC sequence:
PNG
media_image2.png
762
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The sequence of gadB has at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 as evidenced by AF005098 and shown below, where “Qy” is SEQ ID NO: 1 of claim 5 and “Db” is Sanders’ gadB sequence as evidenced by AF005098 (page 3, AAC46188.1):
PNG
media_image3.png
683
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sanders teaches a L. lactis gadB mutant and a strain that is unable to express both gadB and gadC was more sensitive to low pH than wild type when NaCl and glutamate were present (Abstract; page 305, left col. para. 2). Sanders teaches expression of gadCB in L. lactis in the presence of chloride was increased when the culture pH decreased and glutamate also stimulated gadCB expression and therefore these genes encode a glutamate-dependent acid resistance mechanism of L. lactis that is optimally active under conditions in which it is needed to maintain viability (Abstract; page 302, right col.; page 303, left col. para. 1; page 304, left col. para. 1 and right col. para. 1 – 2; page 306, left col. para. 1). Sanders teaches the gadCB resistance system may play a significant role in the gastrointestinal tract that is highly acidic and may be important for the survival of lactococcal cells during cheese production as high levels of both NaCl and glutamate are present in cheese (page 306, right col. para. 1).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention as claimed for the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lyu regarding a genetic construct comprising the P32 constitutive promoter operably linked to gadB and gadC with the teachings of Zhu regarding the P2, P5, and P8 promoters have a higher transcriptional efficiency relative to the P32 promoter with the teachings of Sanders regarding the gadCB operon from L. lactis confers acid resistance to L. lactis to arrive at the claimed genetic construct comprising: a constitutive promoter comprising a P2 promoter, a P5 promoter, or a P8s promoter operably linked to: a gene encoding a glutamic acid decarboxylase; and a gene encoding a glutamate/GABA antiporter. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lyu, Zhu, and Sanders in a genetic construct to lower the pH and increase GABA production in lactic acid bacteria as Lyu teaches the development of strategies for efficient and cost-effective production of GABA become an important issue to meet its increasing commercial demand and Lyu teaches more attention should be paid to the possibility as to whether the acid stress response mechanisms in LAB could be employed to develop cell factories with improved GABA production efficiency and effectual control and directional regulation of the proton homeostasis would be a prerequisite for exerting the expected characteristics in GABA production and Zhu teaches Lactococcus lactis is the model LAB and is a good candidate for heterologous protein production and Sanders teaches the gadCB resistance system may play a significant role in the gastrointestinal tract that is highly acidic. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as Lyu teaches the gadCB and gadCA genetic constructs containing the P32 promoter when transformed in lactic acid bacteria improve GABA production and Zhu teaches the P2, P5, and P8 promoters have higher transcriptional efficiency compared to the P32 promoter and Sanders teaches gadBC helps L. lactis maintain viability under acidic stress.
19. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu (Lyu, Chang-jiang, et al. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 65.4 (2017): 858-866.), hereinafter Lyu in view of Zhu (Zhu, Duolong, et al. FEMS microbiology letters 362.16 (2015): fnv107.), hereinafter Zhu which is cited on the IDS filed 07/25/2023 in view of Sanders (Sanders, Jan Willem, et al. Molecular microbiology 27.2 (1998): 299-310.), hereinafter Sanders as evidenced by AF005098 (GenBank: AF005098.1, submitted 11/15/2023), hereinafter AF005098 as applied to claims 1, 3 – 8, 10, and 15 above, and further in view of Henrich (Henrich, B., et al. Applied and environmental microbiology 68.11 (2002): 5429-5436.), hereinafter Henrich.
Lyu in view of Zhu and Sanders make obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as set forth above. Lyu, Zhu, and Sanders do not teach “the genetic construct of claim 10 further comprises an upstream homology arm and a downstream homology arm flanking the expression cassette that are homologous to a gene in a probiotic bacterium” of claim 11. However, Lyu teaches LAB usually encounter various environmental stresses and to meet these challenges LAB should exert strong physiological robustness and fitness in addition to excellent metabolic capabilities (page 858, left col. para. 1). Lyu teaches physiology-oriented engineering has emerged as a discipline that focuses on the rational improvement of physiological performances of industrial useful strains (page 858, left col. para. 1). Lyu teaches adaptation and tolerance to acid stress are important factors for LAB as lactic acid is the main catabolism product, which acidifies the media and arrests cell multiplication (page 858, left col. para. 2). Lyu teaches the glutamate decarboxylase system (GAD) consumes intracellular protons through the decarboxylation of glutamate in the cytoplasm and exchange of the reaction product GABA with extracellular glutamate, which efficiently works to protect cells from the acid stress that is encountered during food fermentation and gastrointestinal transit (page 858, right col. para. 1). Lyu teaches more attention should be paid to the possibility as to whether the acid stress response mechanisms in LAB could be employed to develop cell factories with improved GABA production efficiency and effectual control and directional regulation of the proton homeostasis would be a prerequisite for exerting the expected characteristics in GABA production (page 859, left col. para. 2 – 3). Zhu teaches Lactococcus lactis is the model LAB and is a good candidate for heterologous protein production (page 1, right col. para. 1). Zhu teaches Lactococcus lactis can be delivered in vivo with the expression of pharmaceutical protein at a mucosal level and it can be used for clinical therapeutics in humans (page 1, right col. para. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Henrich teaches a genetic construct containing an expression cassette containing a promoter and gene from Lactococcus lactis with upstream and downstream homology arms to the L. lactis gene leuB or telB (“gene in a probiotic bacterium”) flanking the expression cassette (Figure 1; page 5431, left col. para. 2 – 5 and right col. para. 1 – 3; page 5433, left col. para. 2 – 4 and right col.). Henrich teaches the construct allows for gene delivery to the chromosome or the sex factor of Lactococcus lactis with expression of the gene (Abstract; page 5431, right col. para. 3; page 5433, left col. para. 2 – 4 and right col.). Henrich teaches the frequencies of integration were as high as 10-2 and as high as 80% of clones contained the insert (page 5433, left col. para. 3). Henrich teaches integration at the site of the leuABCD genes was chosen because it appears to be present and transcribed in most dairy strains of L. lactis subsp. Lactis without being essential for efficient growth in milk (page 5433, left col. para. 2). Henrich teaches food-grade recombinants of LAB may be used as starters in food fermentations and for the safe production of metabolites used as food adjuncts (page 5429, left col. para. 2). Henrich teaches the knowledge about the relationships of distinct genetic traits of L. lactis to relevant fermentation parameters and organoleptic properties of the fermentation products opens new prospects for the deliberate construction of genetically modified strains with desired phenotypes (page 5429, left col. para. 2). Henrich teaches the use of plasmids for food-grade introduction of new or modified genes into L. lactis has drawbacks including structural instabilities and variable copy numbers, which often affect the maintenance and expression of cloned genes (page 5429, right col. para. 2). Henrich teaches integration into the bacterial genome to be a more reliable approach to stabilizing and maintaining the desired genetic features (page 5429, right col. para. 3).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention as claimed for the person or ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lyu regarding an expression cassette comprising the P32 constitutive promoter operably linked to gadB and gadC with the teachings of Zhu regarding the P2, P5, and P8 promoters have a higher transcriptional efficiency relative to the P32 promoter with the teachings of Sanders regarding the gadCB operon from L. lactis confers acid resistance to L. lactis with the teachings of Henrich regarding an expression cassette flanked by homology arms to L. lactis leuB or tel for chromosomal integration to arrive at the claimed genetic construct further comprising an upstream homology arm and a downstream homology arm flanking the expression cassette that are homologous to a gene in a probiotic bacterium. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lyu, Zhu, Sanders, and Henrich in a genetic construct that can be integrated into the chromosome of lactic acid bacteria for expression of gadBC to lower the pH and increase GABA production in lactic acid bacteria rather than expressing gadBC from a plasmid as Henrich teaches the use of plasmids for food-grade introduction of new or modified genes into L. lactis has drawbacks including structural instabilities and variable copy numbers, which often affect the maintenance and expression of cloned genes and Henrich teaches integration into the bacterial genome to be a more reliable approach to stabilizing and maintaining the desired genetic features and Lyu teaches more attention should be paid to the possibility as to whether the acid stress response mechanisms in LAB could be employed to develop cell factories with improved GABA production efficiency and effectual control and directional regulation of the proton homeostasis would be a prerequisite for exerting the expected characteristics in GABA production. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as Henrich teaches the frequencies of integration were as high as 10-2 and as high as 80% of clones contained the insert and Lyu teaches the glutamate decarboxylase system consumes intracellular protons through the decarboxylation of glutamate in the cytoplasm and exchange of the reaction product GABA with extracellular glutamate, which efficiently works to protect cells from the acid stress that is encountered during food fermentation and gastrointestinal transit and Sanders teaches gadBC helps L. lactis maintain viability under acidic stress.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 12 – 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
No claims allowed. Claims 12 – 14 have not been rejected over the prior art as the prior art does not teach homology arms having a sequence with at least 90% sequence identity to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 9 or 10 and the prior art does not teach a sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNA M BEHARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:45 am - 5:45 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, Peter Paras can be reached at (571)272-4517. 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.
/ZANNA MARIA BEHARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 1632