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. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/ KR2022/001485 , filed 1/27/2022 . This application claims benefit to foreign application s KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0011326 , filed 1/27/2021 and KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2022-0011630 , filed 1/26/2022 . Claims 1-26 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements submitted on 1/17/2024, 7/23/2024 and 7/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 6-8, the mutations are listed in a random manner, including mutations at the same amino acid being disbursed through the list, which is unnecessarily obfuscatory. Listing the mutations in an ascending numerical order would facilitate understanding of the invention, especially regarding mutations at the same amino acid locus. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11 and 14 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. The term “ enhanced ” in claim 11, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ enhanced ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the claim recites enhanced expression but it is indefinite what the expression is compared with to determine that it is enhanced ; hence, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The term “ attenuated ” in claim 14, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ attenuated ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the claim recites attenuated expression but it is indefinite what the expression is compared with to determine that it is attenuated ; hence, claim 1 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. 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- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more. C laim s 1- 9 are drawn to compositions of matter which encompass natural products, i.e ., judicial exceptions . Th e judicial exception s are not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite nothing in addition to the natural product composition . The claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite nothing more than the natural product composition . Specifically, claims 1-8 encompass the natural product s of Citrus unshiu , Ricinus communis , Quercus robur , Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Cajanus cajan glycosyltransferases disclosed by Sayre et al ., US2022/0267820 (cite A, attached PTO-892; herein “Sayre”) as SEQ ID NOs: 5301 ( Citrus unshiu ), 5658 ( Ricinus communis ), 5806 ( Quercus robur ), 5879 ( Eucalyptus camaldulensis ) and 6181 ( Cajanus cajan ) ; claims 1-4 and 6-8 encompass the natural products of Sorghum bicolor and Oryza sativa C-glycosyltransferases disclosed by Møller et al ., US 2020/0040367 (cite B, attached PTO-892; herein “ Møller ”) as SEQ ID NOs: 4 ( Sorghum bicolor ) and 5 ( Oryza sativa ); claim 9 encompasses the natural product of the nucleic acid encoding Citrus unshiu , Ricinus communis , Quercus robur , Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Cajanus cajan glycosyltransferases disclosed by Sayre ; and claim 9 encompasses the natural product of the nucleic acid encoding the Sorghum bicolor and Oryza sativa C-glycosyltransferases disclosed by Møller . See the rejections below demonstrating that the amino acid sequences and nucleic acid sequences of Sayre and Møller meet the limitations of claims 1-9 . Thus, claims 1-9 are drawn to a judicial exception (natural product) without substantially more. The Supreme Court, in Myriad , addressed the Court's long-standing "rule against patents on naturally occurring things", as expressed in its earlier precedent including Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012). See Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013). Myriad relied on Chakrabarty as "central" to the eligibility inquiry, and re-affirmed the Office's reliance on Chakrabarty's criterion for eligibility of natural products ( i.e. , whether the claimed product is a non-naturally occurring product of human ingenuity that is markedly different from naturally occurring products). Id. at 2116-17. Myriad also clarified that not every change to a product will result in a marked difference, and that the mere recitation of particular words (e.g., "isolated") in the claims does not automatically confer eligibility . Id. at 2119. See also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (eligibility does not "depend simply on the draftsman's art"). This analysis also applies to the term “mutated” or “mutation” as explained on pp. 8-10 below. Thus, while the holding in Myriad was limited to nucleic acids, Myriad is a reminder that claims reciting or involving natural products are examined for a marked difference under Chakrabarty. The teachings of the Court are instructive to the instant action. Instant claims 1-9 are drawn to natural products (amino acid sequences and nucleic acid sequences); i.e., instant claims 1-9 are drawn to compositions of naturally occurring products. However, merely collecting or isolating naturally occurring products does not impart any significantly different characteristics, with respect to structure or function, to meaningfully distinguish the claimed composition from their naturally occurring counterparts. These judicial exceptions (compositions of naturally occurring products) are not integrated into a practical application because a composition of natural products is not an application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not include elements in addition to the compositions of natural products. Applying the analysis set forth in MPEP 2106 confirms this conclusion: Based upon an analysis with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-9 do not recite something significantly different than a judicial exception (JE), a product of nature, which is not markedly different from its closest-occurring naturally-occurring counterpart and does not present ‘significantly more’ than the JE. The rationale for this determination is explained below: (please see MPEP 2106 as well) The first question in the subject matter eligibility determination is “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” (Step 1) Regarding claims 1-9 , the answer is yes, the claims are drawn to compositions of matter. The second question (Step 2A, prong 1) in the subject matter eligibility determination asks “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)?" Claims 1-9 are drawn to compositions of naturally occurring products, i.e . a natural product or phenomenon. When the judicial exception is a natural product, step 2A, prong 1 analyzes whether the claimed nature-based product is ‘markedly different’ when compared to its closest-occurring natural counterpart. The closest-occurring natural counterpart to the claimed invention is naturally occurring Citrus unshiu , Ricinus communis , Quercus robur , Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Cajanus cajan , Sorghum bicolor and Oryza sativa C-glycosyltransferases and the nucleic acids encoding the Citrus unshiu , Ricinus communis , Quercus robur , Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Cajanus cajan , Sorghum bicolor and Oryza sativa C-glycosyltransferases . All of the components appear to be identical to the components as they occur in nature. Step 2A, prong 2 is drawn to analyzing whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In claims 1-9 , the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims, directed to a composition, recite nothing in addition to the natural products. The final question (Step 2B) in the subject matter eligibility determination to be asked “ Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? ” Regarding claims 1-9 , they only recite natural products ; hence, claims 1-9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; hence, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Sa yre et al ., US 2022/0267820 (cite A , attached PTO-892; herein “Sa yre ”) in light of “ Alignment of Sayre sequences with instant SEQ 1 ” (cite U , attached PTO-892). NOTE: Claims 1-10 are drawn to compositions of matter - claims 1-8 drawn to an amino acid sequence, claim 9 drawn to a nucleic acid encoding the amino acid sequence of claim 1 and claim 10 drawn to a recombinant cell comprising the nucleic acid of claim 9. The limitation of claim 1 that the enzyme “comprises a mutation” is a product-by-process limitation which is met by an enzyme which, when aligned to SEQ ID NO: 1, comprises an amino acid other than F at position 17, an amino acid other than V at position 93, an amino acid other than V at position 132, an amino acid other than L at position 164, an amino acid other than Y at position 193, and/or an amino acid other than R at position 322, whether the CGT enzyme was mutated from SEQ ID NO: 1 in a laboratory or whether the CGT enzyme was isolated from nature and comprises an amino acid other than F at position 17, an amino acid other than V at position 93, an amino acid other than V at position 132, an amino acid other than L at position 164, an amino acid other than Y at position 193, and/or an amino acid other than R at position 322 as compared to SEQ ID NO: 1 because the amino acid sequences are identical whether they were produced by mutating SEQ ID NO: 1 in a laboratory or isolated from a natural source. Note: The claim does not recite a minimum homology with SEQ ID NO: 1 nor restrict insertions or deletions in the sequence. Sa yre discloses novel UDP-glucosyltransferases (UGTs) which have activity toward cannabinoid compounds ( Abst .). Sayre discloses that glycosyltransferases are grouped into 110 functional families wherein one family, SEQ ID NOs: 5260-6290, comprise GTs of the larger structural family GT-B, i.e ., comprising a GT-B fold, with structural subgrouping 2acv ([0419], [0393- 39 4]) . Sayre discloses that the UGT can be the Gentiana triflora C-glycosyltransferase (SEQ 6145 ; GtCGT herein ) which is 100% identical to instant SEQ 1 and is within the GT-B, 2acv group which comprises SEQ ID NOs: 5260-6290 [0071-73]. Sayre teaches producing recombinant microorganisms expressing nucleotide sequences encoding the UGTs of any of SEQ ID NOs: 5260-6290 [0071-73], i.e ., UGTs of the GT-B, 2acv group. The UGTs of SEQ ID NOs: 5260-6290, absent sufficient and compelling evidence to the contrary, are also C-GTs , or have CGT activity, because they are in the same structural group of UGTs as GtCGT rather than one of the other 109 functional families of glycosyltransferases . The UGTs of SEQ ID NO s : 5301 ( Citrus unshiu ), 5658 ( Ricinus communis ), 5806 ( Quercus robur ), 5879 ( Eucalyptus camaldulensis ) and 6181 ( Cajanus cajan ) all anticipate claims 1- 6 because all 5 comprise Q at residue 93 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., a V93Q ‘mutation’, and F at residue 193, i.e ., a Y193F ‘mutation’ , as demonstrated in the evidentiary document “Alignment of Sayre sequences with instant SEQ 1” . The UGTs of SEQ ID NOs: 5301 ( Citrus unshiu ), 5658 ( Ricinus communis ), 5806 ( Quercus robur ), 5879 ( Eucalyptus camaldulensis ) and 6181 ( Cajanus cajan ) all anticipate claims 7-8 because all 5 comprise P at residue 18 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., an I18P ‘mutation’, as demonstrated in the evidentiary document “Alignment of Sayre sequences with instant SEQ 1” . Sayre teaches producing recombinant microorganisms comprising a nucleic acid encoding the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 5301, 5658, 5806, 5879 and 6181 [0071-73] anticipating claims 9-10. Claims 1-4, 6-10 , 12-13, 15-16, 19, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by M ø ller et al ., US 2020/0040367 (cite B, attached PTO-892; herein “ M ø ller ”) in light of “ Alignment of M ø ller sequences with instant SEQ 1 ” (cite V , attached PTO-892). M ø ller discloses producing carminic acid from recombinant host cells expressing polyketide synthase (PKS) genes , ZhuI , ZhuJ aromatase/ cyclases and C-glycosyltransferases ( Abst .; Figs. 1-3; [0003]) wherein the C-glycosyltransferases (CGTs) can be from Sorghum, i.e ., Sorghum bicolor in SEQ ID NO: 4, or rice, i.e ., Oryza sativa in SEQ ID NO: 5 ([0055-56], [0256-257] , [0286]). The CGTs of SEQ ID NOs: 4 ( Sorghum bicolor ) and 5 ( Oryza sativa ) each anticipate claims 1-3 and 6 because SEQ ID NO: 4 comprises G at residue 93 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., a V93G ‘mutation’, and F at residue 193, i.e ., a Y193F ‘mutation’, and SEQ ID NO: 5 comprises L at residue 93 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., a V93L ‘mutation’, and A at residue 193, i.e ., a Y193A ‘mutation’, as demonstrated in the evidentiary document “Alignment of M ø ller sequences with instant SEQ 1” . The CGT of SEQ ID NO: 4 ( Sorghum bicolor ) anticipates claim 4 because SEQ ID NO: 4 comprises F at residue 193, i.e ., a Y193F ‘mutation’, as demonstrated in the evidentiary document “Alignment of M ø ller sequences with instant SEQ 1” . The C GTs of SEQ ID NOs: 4 ( Sorghum bicolor ) and 5 ( Oryza sativa ) each anticipate claims 7-8 because SEQ ID NO: 4 comprises P at residue 18 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., an I18P ‘mutation’ and R at residue 50 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., a T50R ‘mutation’ , as demonstrated in the evidentiary document “Alignment of M ø ller sequences with instant SEQ 1” and SEQ ID NO: 5 comprises M at residue 20 (as aligned with instant SEQ ID NO: 1), i.e ., a Q20M ‘mutation’ . M ø ller teaches that the host cell expressing the recombinant polyketide synthase (PKS) genes, ZhuI , ZhuJ aromatase/ cyclases and C-glycosyltransferase can be a microorganism ( [0080] , [0146], [0149-161]) and teaches expressing recombinant nucleic acid molecules encoding the proteins of interest in the host cell ([0128], [0224-239], [0255-260]) anticipating claims 9-10 , 13 and 16. M ø ller teaches that the cyclases are derived from Streptomyces sp. ([0037], [0061], [0220], [0424]) anticipating claim 19. M ø ller teaches a method of producing carminic acid from recombinant microorganisms expressing polyketide synthase (PKS) genes, ZhuI , ZhuJ aromatase/ cyclases and C-glycosyltransferases comprising producing a polyketide glycoside , i.e ., carminic acid, by culturing the recombinant microorganism and recovering the produced polyketide glycoside , i.e ., carminic acid ( Abst .; Figs. 1-3; [0003] , [0080], [0096], [0146], [0149-161] ) anticipating claims 12, 15 and 22-23. M ø ller teaches that the production can comprise contacting kermesic acid or flavokermesic acid with the CGT in the recombinant cell or in vitro to produce the polyketide glycoside and recovering the polyketide glycoside ([0265-274]) anticipating claims 24 and 26. 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. Claim s 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 19, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Møller in view of Kumaran et al ., US 2022/0 162658 (cite C, attached PTO-892; herein “Kumaran”) . The discussion of Møller regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 22-24 and 26 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein. Møller teaches recombinant microorganisms comprising C-GTs, which are UDP-dependent glycosyltransferases ([0300], [0307], [0323], [0337], [0340], [0348-349]; Fig. 1) , i.e ., UGTs, for use in producing C-glycosylated products as discussed above. Møller does not specifically recite increasing expression of UTP-glucose-1-phosphate uridyltransferase (UGP, galU ), phosphoglucomutase ( pgm ), and/or nucleoside-diphosphate kinase ( ndk ); however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to increase the expression of galU , pgm and/or ndk in recombinant microorganisms wherein the microorganism is designed to utilize UDP-glucose, such as the recombinant microorganisms employing UDP-glucosyltransferases taught by Møller , in view of the disclosure of Kumaran. Kumaran teaches microbial cells employing UDP-glycosyltransferases (UGTs) to produce glycosylated products ( Abst .). Kumaran teaches increasing the expression of galU , pgm and ndk to increase UDP-glucose or UTP in order to facilitate the production of the glycosylated products ([0028], [0065], [0068]; claims 48 and 52; Fig. 8). Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the recombinant microorganisms of Møller to comprise increased expression of UTP-glucose-1-phosphate uridyltransferase (UGP, galU ), phosphoglucomutase ( pgm ), and/or nucleoside-diphosphate kinase ( ndk ) because such increased expression would facilitate the recombinant microorganism to produc e the C-glycosylated products of the C-GTs which require UDP-glucose ; therefore, claim 11 is prima facie obvious. Claim s 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 19 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Møller in view of Martin et al ., US 10457918 (cite D, attached PTO-892; herein “Martin”) or Porro et al ., US 2007/0141687 (cite E, attached PTO-892; herein “Porro” . The discussion of Møller regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 22-24 and 26 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein. Møller discloses producing carminic acid in recombinant microorganisms expressing C-GTs, as set forth in the rejections above, but Møller does not specifically teach culturing the recombinant microorganism in a culture medium comprising ascorbic acid. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice Møller ’s method for producing carminic acid wherein the recombinant microorganism is cultured in a culture medium comprising ascorbic acid in view of the disclosures of Martin and/or Porro. Martin teaches producing betanidin, the aglycone form of betanin , a red glycoside pigment, in recombinant microorganisms ( Abst .; col. 58, ll. 58-65). Martin teaches adding ascorbic acid to the culture medium as a reducing agent to prevent the oxidation and oxidative polymerization of the betanidin which causes the pigment to lose its red color (col. 62, ll. 57-62; col. 65, ll. 54-56; col. 66, ll. 35-37) . Carminic acid is a red glycoside pigment; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method of Møller wherein the culture medium of the recombinant microorganism comprises ascorbic acid as a reducing agent to prevent the oxidation, oxidative polymerization and/or loss of color of the carminic acid ; therefore, claim 25 is prima facie obvious. Porro teaches increasing stress tolerance in recombinant microorganisms engineered for industrial production by exogenously adding ascorbic acid to the recombinant microorganisms’ culture media ( Abst .; [0011], [0014], [0016], [0026], [0047-50], [0149-153]). Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method of Møller wherein the culture medium of the recombinant microorganism comprises ascorbic acid in order to increase the stress tolerance of the recombinant microorganism; therefore, claim 25 is prima facie obvious. Claim s 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Møller in view of Lee et al ., WO 2019/235688 ( cite N, attached PTO-892; US 2021/0277428 (cite F, attached PTO-892; herein “Lee”), the 371 corresponding to WO 2019/235688, is used for the English translation in the cites below ) . The discussion of Møller regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 22-24 and 26 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein. Møller teaches producing glycosylated polyketides with recombinant microorganisms expressing polyketide synthases and C-glycosyltransferases (CGTs) , as discussed above, but does not specifically recite producing aloesin , the C-glycosylated chromone of which aloesone is the aglycone. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method of Møller to produce aloesin with recombinant microorganisms comprising the polyketide synthase aloesone synthase and the CGT in view of the disclosure of Lee. Lee teaches producing aloesone in recombinant microorganisms expressing aloesone synthase (a polyketide synthase) wherein the aloesone synthase is derived from Rheum palmatum ([0068], [0084-86]). Aloesin is C-glycosylated aloesone ; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to produce aloesin from Møller ’s recombinant microorganisms using aloesone synthase as the polyketide synthase with a reasonable expectation of success; therefore, claims 20-21 are prima facie obvious. Regarding claim 14, Lee demonstrates that knockdown of pabA expression increases the production of aloesone by 32.2% ([0174-175], [0244]); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method made obvious by Møller in view of Lee wherein expression of a pabA gene is attenuated because it increases aloesone production; therefore, claim 14 is prima facie obvious. Claim s 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-1 7 , 19, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Møller in view of Cummins et al ., 2019 (cite W, attached PTO-892; herein “Cummins”) . The discussion of Møller regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 22-24 and 26 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein. Møller discloses that the polyketide synthase ( PKS ) system incorporated into the recombinant microorganism for the production of polyketide glycosides can be a Type II PKS ([0027-28], [0033], [0037]), but does not specifically recite that the Type II PKS comprises antD , antE , antF , antB and/or antG nor that the Type II PKS is derived from Photorhabdus luminescens ; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the PKS in the recombinant microorganism of Møller to be the antDEFBG complex from Photorhabdus luminescens in view of the disclosure of Cummins. Cummins teaches incorporating the antDEF , antDEFB or antDEFBG locus from Photorhabdus luminescens into a recombinant microorganism ( E. coli ) wherein the antDEFBG locus produces a functional Type II PKS octaketide synthase ( Abst .; p. 8; Fig. 4). Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to produce a recombinant microorganism made obvious by Møller in view of Cummins comprising antDEFBG from P. luminescens as a functional Type II PKS octaketide synthase because Cummins demonstrates that Type II PKS antDEFBG from P. luminescens can be a functional octaketide synthase in recombinant microorganisms; therefore, claim 17 is prima facie obvious. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 18 is 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 are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Trent R Clarke whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2904 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-7 MST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melenie Gordon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /TRENT R CLARKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651 /DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651