DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application and are being examined on the merits.
Applicant’s preliminary amendment to the claims, filed August 31, 2023, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Priority
This application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 as a national stage of international application PCT/EP2022/054554, filed February 23, 2022, which claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to European application no. 21159994.9, filed March 1, 2021. A certified copy of the foreign priority document has been filed in this application on August 31, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification/Informalities
The use of the terms “Biomerieux,” “AppliChem,” and “ESI-Elemental Scientific,” each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (e.g., paragraphs [0020] and [0046] and p. 12, lines 8-9). All instances of each of the terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3 and 15 are objected to in the recitation of “94% identity,” “96% identity,” and “98% identity” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to insert “sequence” immediately before “identity,” e.g., “94% sequence identity” in claims 1 and 15.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to in the recitation of “nucleic acid has” in line 2 and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “nucleic acid that has.”
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to in the recitation of “wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria is a species of genus Pseudomonas, identified as Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 termed Candidatus Pseudomonas pretiosorbens, having Accession Deposit Number DSM 33684” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria is Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 deposited at the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSM) with
Claim 7 is objected to in the recitation of “The method according to 6” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “The method according to claim 6.”
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.
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-11 are indefinite because the claims are drawn to a method without setting forth any steps involved in the process. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 8 (claim 9 dependent therefrom) is confusing in the recitation of “where the is from liquid material streams” because it is entirely unclear as to the meaning of the noted phrase.
Claims 9, 12 (claims 13 and 14 dependent therefrom), and 13 are indefinite in the recitation of “for example” in claims 9 and 13 and “particularly” in claim 12. The phrases "for example" and “particularly” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163.II.A.2.(a).i) states, “Whether the specification shows that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the 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”.
For claims drawn to a genus, MPEP § 2163 states the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
MPEP § 2163 further states that “[s]atisfactory disclosure of a ‘representative number’ depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus…Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are ‘representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,’ or by the establishment of ‘a reasonable structure-function correlation.’ Such correlations may be established ‘by the inventor as described in the specification,’ or they may be ‘known in the art at the time of the filing date.’"
The factors considered in the Written Description requirement are (1) level of skill and knowledge in the art, (2) partial structure, (3) physical and/or chemical properties, (4) functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the (5) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are drawn to or recite a genus of isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94%, 96%, or 98% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
The specification discloses the reduction to practice of an isolated Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 deposited at DSM with Deposit Number DSM 33684. Other than this single representative species, the specification fails to disclose any other isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94%, 96%, or 98% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
In the art of genetic modifications, it is known that even in a relatively simple microbial background, a single genetic perturbation often has a variety of unpredictable secondary responses within the cell (see, e.g., Santos et al., Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12:168-176, 2008, particularly p. 168, column 2, top; cited on the attached Form PTO-892).
Stackebrandt, E. (“Phylogeny Based on 16S rDNA/DNA”, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, pp. 1-7, Nature Publishing Group, New York, 2001; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) discloses that only a minor change in the 16S rDNA sequence of a prokaryotic organism (1% or approximately 15 nucleotides) may significantly alter the physiological and biochemical properties of the microorganism (p. 7, column 1).
Singh et al. (Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 18:1-11, 2017; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) reviews various protein engineering methods and discloses that despite the availability of an ever-growing database of protein structures and highly sophisticated computational algorithms, protein engineering is still limited by the incomplete understanding of protein functions, folding, flexibility, and conformational changes (see p. 7, column 1, top).
Zhang et al. (Structure 26:1474-1485, 2018; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) discloses that even a mutation that was predicted to be benign caused significant structural changes and unexpected effects on the function of a polypeptide (p. 1475, column 1).
Given the high level of unpredictability in the art of genetic perturbations and amino acid modifications and that the claims allow over 400,000 (claims 1 and 4-14), over 170,000 (claim 2) or over 130,000 (claim 3) genomic nucleotide modifications to SEQ ID NO: 2, the genus of claimed or recited Pseudomonas bacteria is considered to be widely variant and the single disclosed representative species fails to reflect the substantial variation among the genus. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would not accept the disclosed representative species of an isolated Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 deposited at DSM with Deposit Number DSM 33684 as being representative of other Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94%, 96%, or 98% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for an isolated nucleic acid comprising the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 and Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 deposited at DSM with Deposit Number DSM 33684, does not reasonably provide enablement for all isolated nucleic acids and isolated Pseudomonas bacteria as encompassed by the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
“The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976). Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands (858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) as follows: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. See MPEP § 2164.01(a). The Factors considered to be most relevant to the instant rejection are addressed in detail below.
The nature of the invention: According to the specification at paragraphs [0003] to [0005]), “…no process has been described to date that could be used to recover platinum group metals in significant amounts from liquid waste materials using a microorganism from which biomass can be produced in a large scale...there is a need for microorganisms which are capable of preferential binding and separation of metals, particularly precious metals, specifically platinum group metals. Furthermore, there is a need for non-pathogenic robust microorganisms from which biomass can be produced in a large scale…This object is solved by claim 1 of the present invention, which is directed to an isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, having at least 94% identity to SEQ ID No 2.”
The breadth of the claims: Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are drawn to or recite an isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94%, 96%, or 98% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claim 15 is drawn to an isolated nucleic acid having at least 94% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. According to the specification, SEQ ID NO: 2 represents the genome sequence of Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 (paragraph [0044]).
The amount of direction provided by the inventor; The existence of working examples: The specification discloses the following working examples of the claimed isolated nucleic acid and Pseudomonas bacteria – an isolated nucleic acid comprising the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 and Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 deposited at DSM with Deposit Number DSM 33684. The specification fails to provide any guidance or direction regarding modifications to the genomic sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 with an expectation that the resulting Pseudomonas bacteria will maintain the asserted utility of recovering metals. The specification fails to provide guidance or direction for using those genomic sequences encompassed by claim 15 of a non-viable microorganism or a microorganism that does not maintain the asserted utility of recovering metals.
The state of the prior art; The level of one of ordinary skill; The level of predictability in the art: According to MPEP 2164.03, “…what is known in the art provides evidence as to the question of predictability” and “[I]f one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, then there is lack of predictability in the art.”
In the art of genetic modifications, it is known that even in a relatively simple microbial background, a single genetic perturbation often has a variety of unpredictable secondary responses within the cell (see, e.g., Santos et al., Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12:168-176, 2008, particularly p. 168, column 2, top; cited on the attached Form PTO-892).
Stackebrandt, E. (“Phylogeny Based on 16S rDNA/DNA”, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, pp. 1-7, Nature Publishing Group, New York, 2001; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) disclosing that only a minor change in the 16S rDNA sequence of a prokaryotic organism (1% or approximately 15 nucleotides) may significantly alter the physiological and biochemical properties of the microorganism (p. 7, column 1).
Singh et al. (Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 18:1-11, 2017; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) reviews various protein engineering methods and discloses that despite the availability of an ever-growing database of protein structures and highly sophisticated computational algorithms, protein engineering is still limited by the incomplete understanding of protein functions, folding, flexibility, and conformational changes (see p. 7, column 1, top).
Zhang et al. (Structure 26:1474-1485, 2018; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) discloses that even a mutation that was predicted to be benign caused significant structural changes and unexpected effects on the function of a polypeptide (p. 1475, column 1).
As such, one of skill in the art would recognize that it is highly unpredictable as to the resulting effects of any genetic modifications as encompassed by the claims.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: While methods of isolating or generating mutants of a Pseudomonas bacterium were known in the art at the time of the invention, it was not routine in the art to screen for any and all mutant Pseudomonas bacteria as encompassed by the claims.
In view of the overly broad scope of the claims, the lack of guidance and working examples provided in the specification, the high level of unpredictability, and the amount of experimentation required, undue experimentation would be necessary for a skilled artisan to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention. Applicants have not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement (In re Fisher, 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA 1970)). Without sufficient guidance, determination of having the desired biological characteristics is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims are drawn to or recite an isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Since the claimed or recited isolated Pseudomonas bacteria is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. In this case, the specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria and it is not apparent if the Pseudomonas bacteria is readily available to the public. Accordingly, it is deemed that a deposit of this bacterium should have been made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 and the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of Bacillus subtilis SK01.
If the strain has been deposited and accepted under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the specific strain has been deposited and accepted under the Budapest Treaty and that the strain will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of the patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
If the strain has been deposited, but not under the terms of the Budapest treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, applicant may provide assurance or compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, including:
A statement that a deposit of the material has been made in a depository affording permanence of the deposit and ready accessibility thereto by the public if a patent is granted. The depository is to be identified by name and address.
A statement of the name and address of the depositor.
A statement of the date of deposit.
A statement that the deposited material has been accorded a specific (recited) accession number given by the depository.
A viability statement in accordance with 37 CFR 1.807(a) including the date of the viability test, the procedures used to obtain a sample if the test is not done by the depository, and a statement that the deposit is capable of reproduction.
A statement that all restrictions upon the availability to the public of the material so deposited will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent.
A statement that the material has been deposited under conditions that access to the material will be available during the pendency of the patent application to one determined by the Commissioner to be entitled thereto under 37 CFR 1.14 and 35 U.S.C § 122.
A statement that the deposited material will be maintained with all the care necessary to keep it viable and uncontaminated for a period of at least five years after the most recent request for the furnishing of a sample of the deposited microorganism, and in any case, for a period of at least thirty (30) years after the date of deposit for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever period is longer.
That he/she declares further that all statements made therein of his/her own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and further that these statements were made with knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the instant patent application or any patent issuing thereon.
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 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant’s attention is directed to the "Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products”, released on December 16, 2014.
Claims 1-5
Claim Interpretation: Claims 1-3 and 5 are drawn to an isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94%, 96%, or 98% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claim 4 is drawn to the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria according to claim 1, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria is a species of genus Pseudomonas, identified as Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 termed Candidatus Pseudomonas pretiosorbens, having Accession Deposit Number DSM 33684.
According to the specification, the isolated Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 was isolated from an environmental sample taken in Germany (paragraph [0046]).
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-5 encompass a naturally-occurring bacterium, e.g., Pseudomonas sp. BR8764.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claim is drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites a naturally occurring bacterium, which is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). The isolated Pseudomonas bacteria of claims 1-5 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recites the product of nature, without more and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, claims 1-5 do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claims 12-14
Claim Interpretation: Claims 1214 are drawn to a composition comprising:
(a) the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria according to claim 1 in amounts effective to facilitate metal recovery, particularly metal recovery of precious metals and/or platinum group metals;
(b) at least one liquid material.
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 12-14 encompass a combination of naturally occurring components – a naturally-occurring bacterium, e.g., Pseudomonas sp. BR8764, and a liquid material such as water.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claims are drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite a combination of naturally occurring components, which is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). There is no indication in the specification or evidence of record that the combination of components has any characteristics (structural, functional, or otherwise) that are different from the corresponding individual components as each occurs in nature. Furthermore, there is no indication in the specification or evidence of record that combining these components changes the structure, function, or other properties of the naturally occurring components. In other words, the overall combination of components does not render the resulting composition different from each of the individual components. Thus, the composition of claims 12-14 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, the composition of claims 12143 is directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recite the products of nature, without more and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, claims 12-14 do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim Interpretation: Claim 15 is drawn to an isolated nucleic acid having at least 94% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. According to the specification, SEQ ID NO: 2 represents the genome sequence of Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 (paragraph [0044]).
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 15 encompasses a naturally-occurring nucleic acid, e.g., the genomic DNA of Pseudomonas sp. BR8764.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claim is drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites a naturally occurring nucleic acid, which is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). The isolated nucleic acid of claim 15 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recites the product of nature, without more and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, claim 15 does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
For these reasons the claims are rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 6 is drawn to a method, the method comprising using the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria according to claim 1 for metal recovery.
Claim 7 is drawn to the method according to 6, wherein the metal recovery comprises recovery of precious metals and/or platinum group metals.
Claim 8 is drawn to the method according to claim 6 where the is from liquid material streams.
Claim 9 is drawn to the method according to claim 8, wherein the liquid material streams are selected from mine drainage waters, communal or industrial waste waters, process streams, for example from metal refining or recycling processes as well as supernatants from bioleaching processes.
Claim 10 is drawn to the method according to claim 7, wherein the platinum group metals are selected from the group consisting of palladium, platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, iridium, and their mixtures.
Claim 11 is drawn to the method according to claim 6, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria is a species of genus Pseudomonas, identified as Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 termed Candidatus Pseudomonas pretiosorbens, having Accession Deposit Number DSM 33684.
Claims 6-11 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims fail to recite an active process step for “using the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria according to claim 1 for metal recovery.”
Examiner Comment
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest an isolated Pseudomonas bacteria capable of the recovery of metals, wherein the isolated Pseudomonas bacteria comprises a nucleic acid having at least 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, including Pseudomonas sp. BR8764 deposited at DSM with Deposit Number DSM 33684. The prior art of record also does not teach or suggest a nucleic acid having at least 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. As such, claims 1-15 are free of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MANJUNATH N. RAO can be reached on 571-272-0939. 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656