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
Claims 1-23 are pending and under examination.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claims 7, 8, and 12 be found allowable, claims 19, 20, and 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “target” in front of “molecular weight” in claim 1 is extraneous.
Claim 9 is missing a period at the end of the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-23 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.
Claim 1 recites: inoculating an activated culture of Leuconostoc mesenteroides in a 5L fermenter with 10% inoculum. It is unclear what is considered an “activated” culture as the term is not defined in the instant specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what structures and characteristics the L. mesenteroides culture must possess to make it “activated”. As this is not a standard term known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is uncertain whether “activated” is equivalent to a “starter” or “seed” culture. It is also unclear if the culture of L. mesenteroides should be inoculated with an inoculum, or if the claim means that a fermentation broth should be inoculated with L. mesenteroides prior to fermentation to produce a culture of L. mesenteroides.
Claims 1 recites: a carbon source that provides a sucrose concentration of between 10-30% by weight. It is unclear if sucrose should be 10-30% by weight of the carbon source that provides it, or if the fermentation broth should contain sucrose at a concentration of 10-30% by weight.
Claim 1 recites adding dextranase to the fermentation culture in an amount that is 1/100,000 to 5/100,000 of a total fermentation culture volume, but does not recite how many units of dextranase should be present in the volume. An enzyme amount is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as enzyme activity units and the enzyme concentration is indicated as units per volume. Simply requiring a volume ratio renders the enzyme amount indefinite. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not know what amount or concentration of dextranase is required in the fermentation culture.
Claim 1 recites: controlling a molecular weight of the α-glucan that is prepared in the fermentation culture to be within 10000D by monitoring the fermentation time and an amount of enzyme added. The claim recites “within” but does not recite a range MW range. Therefore, it is unclear if the MW should be between 100000D and another value, or if any MW that is 10000D or less will suffice.
It is unclear what fermentation time and enzyme concentration is required to control the molecular weight of the α-glucan.
It is also unclear if decolorization and filtration occur as one single step, i.e., if the plate and frame filter system decolorizes and filters the culture medium, or if decolorization is a separate step.
Claims 2-12 and 19-23 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1.
Claims 2 and 14 recite the Leuconostoc mesenteroides comprises, followed by a limitation on specific strains of Leuconostoc mesenteroides. It is unclear whether the claims require the specific strain to be present in the starting culture before adding an inoculum, or if the claims require the specific strains to be comprised in the inoculum that is added to the fermentation broth in a fermenter during the inoculating step.
Claim 3 recites: the method of claim 1, but only recites compositions for slant seed medium, liquid seed activation medium, and fermentation medium, i.e., products, without a method step. It is unclear what method step of claim 1 is further limited by each type of medium, or if the claim requires preparing the different mediums used for preparing the activated culture.
Claim 3 recites adjusting a pH, however, it is unclear which medium requires pH adjustment.
Claim 3 recites: a carbon source that provides a sucrose concentration of between 10-30% by weight. It is unclear if sucrose should be 10-30% by weight of the carbon source that provides it, or if the fermentation medium should contain sucrose at a concentration of 10-30% by weight.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the Leuconostoc mesenteroides strains preserved in liquid paraffin" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites three separate methods of inoculating a medium with bacteria. It is unclear which method step is required by the claim. It is unclear if the method steps should be performed in sequential order, or if only one of the recited method steps is required, as the claim does not recite “and” or “or” after line 6.
It is unclear what is considered an “activated” seed culture as the term is not defined in the instant specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what structures and characteristics the L. mesenteroides culture must possess to make it “activated”.
It is unclear what the “10% inoculum” contains.
Claim 5 recites: the carbon source comprises white sugar, sugarcane raw sugar, sucrose syrup, or combinations thereof, and the sucrose concentration is 10%, 15%, 18%, 20%, 25%, or 30%. It is unclear if the claim means that the carbon source comprises sucrose at a concentration of 10%, 15%, 18%, 20%, 25%, or 30%, or if the claim means that the fermentation medium of claim 1 comprises a sucrose concentration of 10%, 15%, 18%, 20%, 25%, or 30%.
Claims 7 and 19 recite: wherein the nitrogen source comprises 0.3%, which is an incomplete sentence. It is unclear what type of the nitrogen the source comprises at 0.3%.
Claims 9 and 21 contain the trademark/trade name Dextranase Plus L. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to describe a dextranase enzyme and, accordingly, the description is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites wherein an amount of dextranase is 1/10,000 of the total amount of fermentation culture, but does not recite how many units of dextranase should be present in the volume. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not understand what concentration of dextranase is required in the fermentation culture.
Claim 13 recites: in a fermentation vessel, inoculating an activated culture of Leuconostoc mesenteroides with inoculum and a fermentation broth. It is unclear what is considered an “activated” culture as the term is not defined in the instant specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what structures and characteristics the L. mesenteroides culture must possess to make it “activated”. As this is not a standard term known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is uncertain whether an “activated” culture is equivalent to a “starter” or “seed” culture. It is also unclear if the culture of L. mesenteroides should be inoculated with an inoculum, or if the claim means that a fermentation broth should be inoculated with an inoculum of L. mesenteroides prior to fermentation to produce a culture of L. mesenteroides.
Claim 13 recites adding dextranase to the fermentation culture in an amount that is 1/100,000 to 5/100,000 of a total fermentation culture volume, but does not recite how many units of dextranase should be present in the volume. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not understand what concentration of dextranase should be added to the fermentation culture.
Claim 13 recites a molecular weight “within” 100000D but does not recite a range. Therefore, it is unclear if the MW should be between 100000D and another value, or if any MW that is 10000D or less will suffice.
Claims 14-18 are also rejected as they depend from claim 13.
Claim 15 recites that the bacteria are activated. It is unclear what is considered an “activated” culture as the term is not defined in the instant specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what qualities the L. mesenteroides culture must possess to make it “activated”.
Claim 15 recites a slant seed medium comprising an aqueous mixture. Slant seed medium is canonically understood as a solid medium. Therefore, it is unclear if the medium is a solid or a liquid. The claim also recites ratios but does not define what the ratios comprise, i.e., the claim recites a ratio of 0.17:1 peptone but does not define what component, other than peptone, is required.
Claim 17 recites 10% by volume but does not set forth the denominator. It is also unclear what the inoculum comprises at 10% by volume.
Claim 21 recites that dextranase is 1/10,000 of the total amount of fermentation culture but does not recite how many units of dextranase should be present in the volume. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not understand what concentration of dextranase should be added to the fermentation culture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (A new process for dextran preparation by dextranase addition coupled with sucrose feeding from Leuconostoc mesenteroides 31208. International Sugar Journal, 2019, Vol. 121(1449), 692-696) in view of Morao et al., (Ultrafiltration of demetyhlchlortetracycline industrial fermentation broths. Separation and Purification Technology 22-23 (2001) 459-466), as evidenced by Diaz-Montes (Dextran: Sources, Structures, and Properties. Polysaccharides 2021, 2, 554-565) and Shodex SUGAR KS-800 Series Operation Manual, 2022.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Zhang teaches a method of synthesizing dextran (Abstract), which is an α-glucan, i.e., glucose molecules linked by α(1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) bonds, as evidenced by Diaz-Montes (p. 556, para. 2). Zhang teaches inoculum preparation (p. 693, col. 1, Inoculum preparation). Zhang teaches that a Leuconostoc mesenteroides seed culture, i.e., an inoculum, was fermented in a 5L fermenter at 26˚C with pH of 6.5 while stirring at 100 rpm (p. 693, col. 2, Batch fermentation of L. mesenteroides 31208). Although the stirring speed of Zhang differs from that of the instant claim, stirring speed would have been a matter of routine optimization on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill, said artisan recognizing that stirring speed would affect fermentation product. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and (II). Zhang teaches a sucrose concentration of 130g/L (Figures 3 and 4), i.e., 13%. Zhang teaches that dextranase was added to the fermenter at 16h at 0.1U per mL of fermentation broth (p. 693, col. 2, New fermentation process with sucrose feeding based on dextranase addition).
Zhang teaches a peptone concentration, which is considered a nitrogen source, of 2g/L (p. 693, col. 1, Chemicals), i.e., 0.2%. Zhang teaches that fermentation was ended, i.e. terminated, when the molecular weight of dextran was between 5000-8000Da (p. 693, col. 2, New fermentation process with sucrose feeding based on dextranase addition). Zhang teaches that the reaction mixture was filtered and the filtrate was injected into a liquid chromatograph (p. 693, col. 2, Analytical methods). Zhang teaches the use of a Shodex SUGAR KS-803 column (p. 693, col. 2, Analytical methods) which uses ion exchange to separate and analyze sugars, as evidenced by the Shodex operation manual (Introduction). Zhang teaches that the process yielded a product with a molecular weight in the range of 5000-8000Da (Abstract). Zhang teaches that the process produced 107.8 g/L of product (Abstract), and teaches dextran precipitation (p. 695, col. 1, Determination of feeding amount for dextran production), i.e., it is considered that Zhang teaches a concentrated, dried, product.
It is interpreted that a plate and frame filter system decolorizes and filters the fermentation culture. Zhang does not teach the use of a plate and frame filter system for decolorization and filtration of the fermentation culture.
However, Morao teaches the use of a plate and frame filter system (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have decolorized and filtered the fermentation culture of Zhang using the plate and frame filter system of Morao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Morao teaches that fermentation broths may be filtered using a plate and frame filter system (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang and Morao are in the same field of endeavor of bacterial fermentation at an industrial scale.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches Leconostoc mesenteroides strain 31208 (p. 693, col. 1, Materials and methods).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the use of sucrose, i.e., white sugar, at 130g/L (Figures 3 and 4), i.e., 13%.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Zhang teaches a peptone concentration, which is considered a nitrogen source (p. 693, col. 1, Chemicals).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Zhang teaches that fermentation was carried out at a temperature of 26˚C (p. 693, col. 2, Batch fermentation of L. mesenteroides 31208). Although the temperature of Zhang differs from that of the instant claim, MPEP§ 2144.05 II states: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.")” The selection of fermentation temperature would have been a matter of routine optimization on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill, said artisan recognizing that fermentation temperature would affect fermentation product concentration.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches that dextranase was added to the fermenter at 0.1U per mL of fermentation broth (p. 693, col. 2, New fermentation process with sucrose feeding based on dextranase addition).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Zhang teaches a fermentation time of 26h (Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang teaches that fermentation was ended, i.e. terminated, when the molecular weight of dextran was between 5000-8000Da (p. 693, col. 2, New fermentation process with sucrose feeding based on dextranase addition). Zhang teaches that the process yielded a product with a molecular weight in the range of 5000-8000Da (Abstract). Zhang teaches that the process produced 107.8 g/L of product (Abstract), i.e., a non-aqueous or dried product.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (International Sugar Journal, 2019, Vol. 121(1449), 692-696) and Morao et al., (Separation and Purification Technology 22-23 (2001) 459-466), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hakobyan et al. (Yeast extract as an effective nitrogen source stimulating cell growth and enhancing hydrogen photoproduction by Rhodobacter sphaeroides strains from mineral springs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012) 6519-6526) as evidenced by Soma et al., (Trace impurities in sodium phosphate influences the physiological activity of Escherichia coli in M9 minimal medium. Scientific Reports (2023) 12:17396).
See discussion of Zhang and Morao above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well. Claim 3 is interpreted to encompass a medium comprising Na2HPO4, peptone, sucrose, and agar.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Zhang teaches medium comprising Na2HPO412H2O, which is the hydrated form of Na2HPO4, and the two may be used interchangeably, as evidenced by Soma (p. 2, para. 2). Zhang teaches that the medium comprises peptone, sucrose, and agar (p. 693, col. 2, Chemicals). Zhang teaches liquid medium therefore water would be an inherent component of said medium. Zhang teaches sterilizing medium at 121˚C for 20 mins. Zhang teaches adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium to 6.5 (p. 693, col. 2, Batch fermentation of L. mesenteroides 31208). Although the concentrations and pH values of Zhang differ from that of the instant claims, see MPEP§ 2144.05 I and II, discussed above. The selection of specific pH values and medium composition concentrations would have been a matter of routine optimization on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill, said artisan recognizing that pH and medium composition concentrations would affect fermentation product concentration.
Zhang does not teach tryptone or yeast powder as a nitrogen source.
However, Hakobyan teaches yeast extract as an effective nitrogen source to support bacterial cell growth (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute yeast extract as taught by Hakobyan for peptone as taught by modified Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because substituting one nitrogen source for another is well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the results are reasonably predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (International Sugar Journal, 2019, Vol. 121(1449), 692-696) and Morao et al., (Separation and Purification Technology 22-23 (2001) 459-466), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goeres et al., (A method for growing a biofilm under low shear at the air-liquid interface using the drop flow biofilm reactor. Nature Protocols, Vol. 4 No. 5, 2009).
Zhang teaches inoculating 50 mL of seed medium with L. mesenteroides at 26˚C while shaking at 100 rpm for 24 hours, followed by adding 10% of the seed culture to a 5L fermenter. (p. 693, Inoculum preparation and Batch fermentation of L. mesenteroides 31208). Although the seed medium volume and the culture temperature differ from that of the instant claim, see MPEP MPEP§ 2144.05 I and II, discussed above. The selection of volume and temperature would have been a matter of routine optimization on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill.
Zhang does not teach inoculation with an inoculation loop.
However, Goeres teaches a method of using a loop to pick a bacterial colony and stir it into the culture media (p. 785, col. 1, Bacterial culture and inoculum preparation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a loop, as taught by Goeres, to add L. mesenteroides into culture media, as taught by modified Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Goeres teaches that the method may be used to prepare an inoculum (p. 785, col 1., Bacterial culture and inoculum preparation). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang and Goeres are in the same field of endeavor of bacterial culture methods.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (International Sugar Journal, 2019, Vol. 121(1449), 692-696) and Morao et al., (Separation and Purification Technology 22-23 (2001) 459-466), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Munkel et al. (Fine structures of different dextrans assessed by isolation and characterization of endo-dextranase liberated isomalto-oligosaccharides. Carbohydrate Polymers 215 (2019) 296-306).
See discussion of Zhang and Morao above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Zhang does not teach a dextranase with an activity of 100 KDU/g.
However, Munkel teaches a dextranase from Chaetomium erraticum with an activity of greater than 100 KDU/g (p. 297, col. 1, section 2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the dextranase from Chaetomium erraticum as taught by Munkel and Wefers, for the dextranase from Pichia pastoris as taught by modified Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because substituting enzymes for those of similar function is well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the results are reasonably predictable.
Claims 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (International Sugar Journal, 2019, Vol. 121(1449), 692-696), as evidenced by Diaz-Montes (Dextran: Sources, Structures, and Properties. Polysaccharides 2021, 2, 554-565) and Soma et al., (Trace impurities in sodium phosphate influences the physiological activity of Escherichia coli in M9 minimal medium. Scientific Reports (2023) 12:17396).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches a method of synthesizing dextran (Abstract), which is an α-glucan α-glucan, i.e., glucose molecules linked by α(1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) bonds, as evidenced by Diaz-Montes (p. 556, para. 2). Zhang teaches inoculum preparation (p. 693, col. 1, Inoculum preparation). Zhang teaches that a Leuconostoc mesenteroides seed culture was fermented in a 5L fermenter at 26˚C with pH of 6.5 while stirring at 100 rpm (p. 693, col. 2, Batch fermentation of L. mesenteroides 31208). Although the stirring speed of Zhang differs from that of the instant claim, stirring speed would have been a matter of routine optimization on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill, said artisan recognizing that stirring speed would affect fermentation product. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and (II).
Zhang teaches a sucrose concentration of 130g/L (Figures 3 and 4), i.e., 13%. Zhang teaches that dextranase was added to the fermenter at 16h at 0.1U per mL of fermentation broth (p. 693, col. 2, New fermentation process with sucrose feeding based on dextranase addition). Zhang teaches a peptone concentration, which is considered a nitrogen source, of 2g/L (p. 693, col. 1, Chemicals), i.e., 0.2%. Zhang teaches that the reaction mixture was filtered and the filtrate was injected into a liquid chromatograph (p. 693, col. 2, Analytical methods). Zhang teaches that the process yielded a product with a molecular weight in the range of 5000-8000Da (Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches Leconostoc mesenteroides strain 31208 (p. 693, col. 1, Materials and methods).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches medium comprising Na2HPO412H2O, peptone, sucrose, and agar (p. 693, Chemicals). Na2HPO412H2O is an alternative, hydrated form of Na2HPO4, and the two may be used interchangeably, as evidenced by Soma (p. 2, para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Na2PO4 in place of Na2HPO412H2O.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches inoculum preparation (p. 693, col. 1, Inoculum preparation).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches the use of sucrose, i.e., white sugar, at 130g/L (Figures 3 and 4), i.e., 13%.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (A new process for dextran preparation by dextranase addition coupled with sucrose feeding from Leuconostoc mesenteroides 31208), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hakobyan et al. (Yeast extract as an effective nitrogen source stimulating cell growth and enhancing hydrogen photoproduction by Rhodobacter sphaeroides strains from mineral springs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012) 6519-6526).
See discussion of Zhang above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Zhang does not teach tryptone or yeast powder as a nitrogen source.
However, Hakobyan teaches yeast extract as an effective nitrogen source to support bacterial cell growth (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute yeast extract as taught by Hakobyan for peptone as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because substituting one nitrogen source for another is well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the results are reasonably predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL EMILY MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1416. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-16:00, F 8:30-10:00 EST.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at (571) 272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/RACHEL EMILY MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1657