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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and the following species: SEQ ID NO:9 for claim 3, SEQ ID NO:18 for claim 5, oral administration for claim 10, fungal cell for claim 15, Bacillus subtil i s for claim 16, inflammatory bowel disease for claims 18 and 24 and Bifidobacterium longum for claim 28 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 12-18 and 20-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 . Claims 1-6, 9-18 and 20-28 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 9-11 (claim set filed 12/17/2025) are examined on the merits herein. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/01 6924 filed 02/18/2022 which claims benefit of provisional application 63/289,439 filed 12/14/2021 and claims benefit of provisional application 63/151,190 filed 02/19/2021 . Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites acronym NTPDase . Although claim 2 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since the specification describes that NTPDase stands for nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase (paragraph 0008), to enhance the clarity of the claims aforesaid objection is made. The Applicant is suggested to provide description of acronym NTPDase in claim 2 . 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. Claim s 3 - 5 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. Claims 3 and 5 recite SEQ ID NOs with identification numbers in parenthesis, i.e. SEQ ID NO:9 (CRC22110) in claim 3 and SEQ ID NO:18 (CRC21323) in claim 5. The specification describes CRC 22110 and CRC21323 as sequence names ( paragraph 0136, Table 1 ). However, since the sequence names are in parenthesis, it is not clear whether these identifiers are limiting to the claims. The scope and boundaries of claims 3 and 5 are not certain making claims 3 and 5 indefinite. For examination the identification numbers are interpreted as sequence names, however, they are not considered to be claim limitations. Claim 4 recites: “an acid phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.2). It is not clear if the EC enzyme classification number is limiting to the claim since it is in parenthesis. The scope and boundaries of claim 4 are not certain making claim 4 indefinite. For examination the EC classification number is not considered to be claim 4 limitation . 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, 2, 4, 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevigny (WO 2018058246 A1) in view of Anand (Anand and Srivastava Appl. Biochem . Biotechnol ., 2012, 167, 2174-2197) and Jolly (US 2011 0200574 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Sevigny teaches treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with nucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase ( NTPDase ) (paragraph 0006). Sevigny mentions that ATP constitutes an endogenous danger signal that promotes inflammation (paragraph 0003). Sevigny describes compositions comprising NTPDase and inhibitor or antagonist of P2Y 6 receptor (paragraph 0009). Sevigny provides a list of enzymes that can be used in the composition under the term NTPDases , including NTPDase1 - NTPDase8 or their derivatives, acid and alkaline phosphatases, NTPDases from bacteria, insects, apyrases from plants (paragraph 0038, Table 1). Sevigny mentions that the compositions can be administered by oral, enteric o r intrarectal administration (paragraph 0065). Sevigny does not teach the enzyme to be active at least from pH 3.5 to pH 7 and does not teach enteric coating. Anand teaches structure, properties and catalytic mechanism of acid phosphatases (Abstract). Anand discloses that acid phosphatases (EC 3.1.3.2) catalyze hydrolysis of phosphate monoesters in acidic conditions at pH 4-7 (p. 2174, last paragraph). Anand provides examples of acid phosphatases of different origin having activity at acidic pH and mentions acid phosphatase from Aspergillus niger which is active at highly acidic pH of 2.0-2.4 (p. 2183, last paragraph, p. 2184, 1 st paragraph). Anand describes that acid phosphatases can hydrolyze a wide range of phosphorylated esters and some of them are more specific to triphosphate nucleotides, such as ATP, UTP or GTP (p. 2184, last paragraph). Jolly teaches enzyme compositions used to treat gluten intolerance (Abstract). Jolly describes that the composition may be formulated for oral delivery and contain enteric coating (paragraph 0014). Jolly mentions that the enteric coating allows delivery of the active agent to the intestine resisting digestion in acidic stomach conditions (paragraph 0119). Jolly discloses different polymers and other agents to be used for the enteric coating (paragraphs 0120, 0121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Anand teaching and expect acid phosphatases used in the composition for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease taught by Sevigny to have activity at pH of at least from pH 3.5 to pH 7. One would have been motivated to do that because Anand teaches acid phosphatases to be in general active at pH 4-7 with some acid phosphatase active at as low pH as 2.0-2.4. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that since Sevigny and Anand teach enzymes hydrolyzing NTP including acid phosphatases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add enteric coating taught by Jolly to the enzyme composition for hydrolysis of NTP based on Sevigny and Anand teachings. One would have been motivated to do that because Sevigny describes composition for enteric administration and Jolly teaches the enteric coating for delivery of the active agent to the intestine resisting digestion in acidic stomach conditions and provides instructions for enteric coating preparation. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that since Sevigny and Jolly teach enzymes compositions to be delivered to the intestines. Thus, Sevigny, Anand and Jolly teachings render claim 1 obvious. Regarding claim 2, Sevigny teaches different NTPDases belonging to GDA1_CD39 superfamily, for instance, NTPDase2 which is also called CD39L1 or ecto -ATPase (paragraph 0038, Table 1). Thus, Sevigny, Anand and Jolly teachings render claim 2 obvious. Regarding claim 6, Sevigny teaches the nucleotide triphosphate to comprise ATP (paragraph 0050). Thus, Sevigny, Anand and Jolly teachings render claim 6 obvious. Regarding claim 4, Anand teaches acid phosphatase s derived from different sources and not from Shigella (p. 2177-2178, Table 1). Regarding claim 9, Anand mentions that most of acid phosphatases can catalyze hydrolysis of a wide range of phosphorylated esters and some of them have higher specificity to ATP (p. 2184, last paragraph). Anand provides specific activity for acid phosphatases in Table 1 which is up-to 620 U/mg or µmol/min/mg for L. escullentum acid phosphatase. As described above for claim 1, Anand teaches acid phosphatases to be active at pH 4-7 (p. 2174, last paragraph). Claim 9 is interpreted as having limitation for the specific activity to be at least about 500 µmol/mg/min and be in the range of about 500-2700 µmol/mg/min at about pH 3.5-7 range. Therefore, since Anand teaches specific activity higher than 500 µmol/min/mg and pH 4-7, that reads of the claim 9 limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Anand teaching and select acid phosphatase hydrolyzing ATP with specific activity of 500-2700 µmol/min/mg at pH 4-7 for the composition for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease taught by Sevigny. One would have been motivated to do that with reasonably expected success because Anand describes structural and functional characteristics of multiple acid phosphatases from various sources . Thus, Sevigny, Anand and Jolly teachings render claims 4 and 9 obvious. Regarding claim 10, Jolly teaches enzyme composition formulated for oral delivery and containing enteric coating (paragraph 0014). Regarding claim 11, Jolly teaches rectal administration of the composition and describes the corresponding dosage units as suppositories or gelatin-rectal capsules containing enzyme mixed with a vegetable oil or paraffin oil (paragraph 0122). The gelatin in gelatin capsules can serve as enteric coating formulated for rectal administration . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use enteric coating taught by Jolly for oral and rectal administration of the enzyme composition for hydrolysis of NTP based on Sevigny and Anand teachings. One would have been motivated to do that with reasonably expected success because Sevigny teaches oral and intrarectal administration of composition and Jolly provides instructions for preparation of specific enteric coating for oral delivery to avoid composition digestion in acidic stomach conditions and for rectal delivery . Thus, Sevigny, Anand and Jolly teachings render claims 10 and 11 obvious. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevigny (WO 2018058246 A1) in view of Anand (Anand and Srivastava Appl. Biochem . Biotechnol ., 2012, 167, 2174-2197) and Jolly (US 20110200574 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GenBank EKE69473.1 ( nucleoside phosphatase GDA1/CD39, NCBI, 2012 [retrieved on 03 /24/202 6 ]. Retrieved from the Internet: <nucleoside phosphatase GDA1/CD39 [ Gallaecimonas xiamenensis 3-C-1] - Protein - NCBI>) . The teaching of Sevigny, Anand and Jolly have been set forth above. Sevigny, Anand and Jolly do not teach the enzyme to comprise a polypeptide at least 40% identical to SEQ ID NO:9. GenBank EKE69473.1 teaches nucleoside phosphatase of GDA1/CD39 family derived from Gallaecimonas xiamenensis . The sequence of that nucleoside phosphatase comprises the polypeptide 100% identical to SEQ ID NO:9 (elected species) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using nucleoside phosphatase taught by GenBank EKE69473.1 in the enzyme composition for hydrolysis of NTP based on Sevigny , Anand and Jolly teachings . One would have been motivated to do that because GenBank EKE69473.1 provides annotated sequence for CD39 nucleoside phosphatase and CD39 NTPDases are included as potential enzymes in Sevigny composition. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that since Sevigny teaches enzyme composition for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease including various NTP hydrolases and GenBank EKE69473.1 provides sequence for such enzyme . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevigny (WO 2018058246 A1) in view of Anand (Anand and Srivastava Appl. Biochem . Biotechnol ., 2012, 167, 2174-2197) and Jolly (US 20110200574 A1) as applied to claim s 1 and 4 above, and further in view of NCBI WP_054306375.1 ( acid phosphatase, NCBI, 201 5 [retrieved on 03 /24/202 6 ]. Retrieved from the Internet: < acid phosphatase [Serratia rubidaea ] - Protein - NCBI >) . Sevigny, Anand and Jolly do not teach the enzyme to comprise a polypeptide at least 50% identical to SEQ ID NO:18 (elected species) . NCBI WP_054306375.1 teaches acid phosphatase derived from Serratia rubidaea . NCBI WP_054306375.1 mentions that the enzyme catalyzes phosphomonoester hydrolysis with optimal activity in low pH conditions. The sequence of that acid phosphatase comprises the polypeptide 100% identical to SEQ ID NO:18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using acid phosphatase taught by NCBI WP_054306375.1 in the enzyme composition for hydrolysis of NTP based on Sevigny , Anand and Jolly teachings. One would have been motivated to do that because NCBI WP_054306375.1 provides annotated sequence for acid phosphatase with optimal activity in low pH and acid phosphatases are included as potential enzymes in Sevigny composition and described by Anand to be active at low pH. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that since Sevigny teaches enzyme composition for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease including acid phosphatases, Anand describes properties of various acid phosphatases and NCBI WP_054306375.1 provides sequence for such enzyme. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0911 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday: 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sharmila G Landau can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0614 . 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. /L.G.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1653 /SHARMILA G LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653