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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-2 & 4-14) without traverse in the reply filed on 1/30/26 is acknowledged.
2. Claims withdrawn:
Claims 3 & 15-35 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
3. Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), filed 1/20/21, is acknowledged.
4. Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/19/23 are acknowledged.
5. Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
6. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Written Description)
Claims 1-2 & 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claimed invention is directed to the following genus claims.
1. A modified recombinant host cell comprising a first exogenous polynucleotide that encodes a CoA-transferase that converts an aliphatic carboxylic acid to an acyl CoA thioester, wherein the modified recombinant host cell is engineered to produce a cannabinoid product.
2. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 1, wherein the CoA-transferase is selected from the group consisting of R. hominis butyryl-CoA:acetate CoA-transferase, E. coli acetyl-CoA:acetoacetyl CoA-transferase, and C. necator H16 propionate CoA-transferase.
4. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 2, wherein the modified recombinant host cell further comprises one or more exogenous polynucleotides selected from the group consisting of: a second exogenous polynucleotide that encodes a polyketide synthase (PKS), and a third exogenous polynucleotide that encodes a 2-alkyl-4,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid cyclase.
5. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 4, wherein the PKS is a type I PKS, a type II PKS, or a type III PKS.
6. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 4, wherein the 2-alkyl-4,6-dihydroxybenzoic acid cyclase is olivetolic acid cyclase, an AtHS1 polypeptide, or the N-terminal domain of a BenH polypeptide.
7. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 4, wherein the modified recombinant host cell further comprises a fourth polynucleotide that encodes a prenyltransferase.
8. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 7, wherein the prenyltransferase is geranylpyrophosphate:olivetolate geranyltransferase.
9. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 7, wherein multiple copies of the fourth polynucleotide are integrated into the host cell genome.
10. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 1, wherein expression of one or more of the exogenous polynucleotides is driven by an ADH2 promoter, an ADH1 promoter, a GAL1 promoter, a MET25 promoter, a CUP1 promoter, a GPD promoter, a PGK promoter, a PYK promoter, a TPI promoter, a TEF1 promoter, or an FBA1 promoter.
11. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 1, wherein at least two of the exogenous polynucleotides are present in the same autonomously replicating expression vector and expressed as a multicistronic mRNA.
12. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 1, wherein the host cell is genetically modified to overexpress one or more mevalonate pathway enzymes.
13. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 12, wherein the mevalonate pathway enzymes are selected from the group consisting of erg10, erg13, thmgr, erg12, erg8, mvd1, idi1, erg20 F96WN127W, E. faecalis mvaE, and E. faecalis mvaS.
14. The modified recombinant host cell of claim 1, wherein the modified recombinant host cell is a cell selected from the group consisting of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces marxianus, Pichia pastoris, Yarrowia hpolytica, Hansenula polymorpha and Aspergillus
The claims are described by functional limitations only and are devoid of a reference structure for the claimed first exogenous polynucleotide or the encoding CoA-transferase, or wherein the host cell is any host cell and is genetically modified in any ways to overexpress any of the mevalonate pathway enzymes. The claimed invention encompasses a genus of nucleic acids/transferases/host cell not adequately described.
The instant specification describes a yeast host cell expressing the CoA-transferase comprises an R. hominis butyryl-CoA:acetate CoA-transferase polypeptide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, or the CoA-transferase comprises E. coli acetyl-CoA:acetoacetyl-CoA transferase polypeptide sequences of SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 3. In some embodiments, the CoA-transferase comprises a C. necator H16 propionate CoA-transferase polypeptide sequence, e.g., as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 4, that produces cannabinoid selected from CBG, CBDA, CBD, THC, Δ.sup.8-THC, THCA, Δ.sup.8-THCA, CBCA, CBA, CBN, CBDN, CBNA, CBV, CBVA, THCV, THCVA, Δ.sup.8-THCA, CBGV, CBGVA, CBCV, CBCVA, CBDV and CBDVA. See paragraph [40] and Table 2 for example. Abbreviation if used in the claims must be spelled out at least at the first mention. For example, cannabigerolic acid (CBGA)…etc.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. The courts have stated:
"To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe aninvention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what isclaimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "bydescribing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,"and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966."Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
Further, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. In Regents" of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. the court stated:
"A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284985 (CCPA 1973) ("In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus ...") Regents" of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is "not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence." MPEP § 2163. The MPEP does state that for a generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP § 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP § 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number of species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gostelli, the courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli, 872, F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include "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. 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. While all of the factors have been considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below.
Further, to provide evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include: a) the scope of the invention; b) actual reduction to practice; c) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas; d) relevant identifying characteristics including complete structure, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, and structure/function correlation; e) method of making the claimed compounds; f) level of skill and knowledge in the art; and g) predictability in the art.
Moreover, Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.1991), states that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed" (See page 1117). The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed" (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus of polypeptides, and therefore, conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993).
Therefore, for all these reasons the specification lacks adequate written description, and one of skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
7. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 10 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020127506 A1.
WO 2020127506 A1 [Dominique Louis & Karine Jaillardon] Company Alderys, anticipates claim 1-2, 10 & 14 as explained below.
Dominique Louis & Karine Jaillardon teach a recombinant yeast according to the invention comprise, in addition to a nucleic acid gene encoding an enzyme able to catalyze the decarboxylation of oxaloacetate into malonic semi-aldehyde as defined above, (i) at least one nucleic acid encoding a 3 -hydroxy acid dehydrogenase or a malonate-coA reductase and (ii) at least one nucleic acid encoding a propionate-CoA transferase.
The propionate-CoA transferase according to this embodiment can be the propionate-CoA transferase of Cupriavidus necator (EC 2.8.3.1). See page 48, lines 11-17. Page 34-35 for promoters; See claims 1-18 and the entire patent.
In another embodiment, a recombinant yeast according to the invention comprise, in addition to a nucleic acid gene encoding an enzyme able to catalyze the decarboxylation of oxaloacetate into malonic semi-aldehyde as defined above, (i) at least one nucleic acid encoding a 3 -hydroxy acid dehydrogenase or a malonate-coA reductase, (ii) at least one nucleic acid encoding a propionate-CoA transferase and (iii) at least one 3- hydroxypropionyl coenzyme A dehydratase.
The 3-hydroxy acid dehydrogenase and/or malonate-coA reductase according to this embodiment can be the 3-hydroxy acid dehydrogenase (YDFG) of E. coli (BAA15241.1) or the malonate-coA reductase from Chloroflexus aurantiacus (SEQ ID NO: 7). The propionate-CoA transferase according to this embodiment can be the propionate-CoA transferase of Cupriavidus necator (EC 2.8.3.1). The 3-hydroxypropionyl coenzyme A dehydratase according to this embodiment can be the 3-hydroxypropionyl coenzyme A dehydratase of Metallosphaera sedula (EC 4.2.1.116).
Examples of derivatives of malonate semi-aldehyde can for example be propanol, propanal, acrylic acid, acrylyl-CoA, isopropanol, acrylate, proprionate, propyonyl-CoA, 3-hydroxypropionate, 3 hydroxypropyl-CoA, 3 -hydroxy-3 -methyl - butyrate, phloroglucinol, flavonoids, cannabinoids, famesyl-PP, squalene and derivatives of these pathways.
In a particular embodiment, derivatives of malonate semi-aldehyde are selected from the group consisting of propanol, propanal, acrylic acid, acrylyl-CoA, isopropanol, acrylate, proprionate, propyonyl-CoA, 3-hydroxypropionate, 3 hydroxypropyl-CoA, 3 -hydroxy-3 -methyl-butyrate, phloroglucinol, flavonoids, cannabinoids, famesyl-PP and squalene. (see for example pages 44-48).
The reference further teaches that the strong promoter of the invention is, independently, selected from the group consisting of pTDH3, pEN02, pTEF-KI, pTEF3, pTEFl, pADH1 (SEQ ID NO: 18), pGMPl, pFBAl, pPDCl, pCCW12 and pGKl. See claim 11, for example.
According to this embodiment, the inducible promoter according to the invention can, independently, be selected from the group consisting of pCTRl, pCTR3, pCURl, pCUR2, pCUR3, pCUR4, pCUR5p, pCUR6, pCUR7, pCUR8, pCUR9, pCURlO, pCURl l, pCUR12, pCUR13, pCUR14, pCUR15, pCUR16, pCUR17, pLYSl, pLYS4, pLYS9, pLYRlp, pLYR2p, pLYR3p, pLYR4p, pLYR5p, pLYR6p, pLYR7p, pLYR8, pLYR9, pLYRlO, pLYRl l, pMET17, pMET6, pMET14, pMET3, pSAMl, pSAM2, pMDH2, pJENl, pICLl, pADH2 (SEQ ID NO; 88) and pMLSl. See claim 13, for example.
RECOMBINANT YEAST (host cell): Generally, yeast can grow rapidly and can be cultivated at higher density as compared with bacteria, and does not require an aseptic environment in the industrial setting. Furthermore, yeast cells can be more easily separated from the culture medium compared to bacterial cells, greatly simplifying the process for product extraction and purification.
Preferentially, the yeast of the invention may be selected among the genus Saccharomyces, Candida Ashbya, Dekkera , Pichia (Hansenula), Debaryomyces, Clavispora, Lodderomyces, Yarrowia, Zigosaccharomyces, Schizosaccharomyces, Torulaspora , Kluyveromyces , Brettanomycces, Cryptococcus or Malassezia. More preferentially, the yeast may be Crabtree positive yeast of genus of Saccharomyces, Dekkera , Schizosaccharomyces, Kluyveromyces, Torulaspora Zigosaccharomyces, or. Brettanomycces.
8. No claim is allowed.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEKCHAND SAIDHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0940. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8.00-5.30. 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, Robert B Mondesi can be reached on 408 918 7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TEKCHAND SAIDHA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Recombinant Enzymes, Hoteling
Telephone: (571) 272-0940
Fax: (571) 273-0940