DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Invention I), SEQ ID NO: 565 encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 564, and SEQ ID NO: 355 in the reply filed on 09/10/2025 is acknowledged. The arguments filed have been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant failed to establish that all of the alternatively recited SEQ ID NOs are materially same such that all of the alternatively recited SEQ ID NOs share a common amino acid or nucleic acid sequence such that search and examination of one SEQ ID NO would overlap with those of another SEQ ID NO. Since SEQ ID NOs alternatively recited in the claims are deemed materially different as noted in the last Office action, each SEQ ID NO requires independent, separate search and examination, thereby imposing a serious burden on the examiner if the election/restriction was not required as evidenced by the fact that, for instance, search/examination of SEQ ID NO: 564 would be inapplicable to SEQ ID NO: 20 as the two sequences share essentially no significant sequence identity. SEQ ID NO: 20 has 28.9 identity to elected sequence SEQ ID NO: 564 (see attached alignment). Further, each of SEQ ID NO: 58 has 45.3% identity, SEQ ID NO: 331 has 30.4%, SEQ ID NO: 335 has 32.9% identity, and SEQ ID NO: 445 has 30.8% to elected sequence SEQ ID NO: 564 (see attached alignments).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all of the inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons of record and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-23, 25-30, SEQ ID NO: 565 encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 564, SEQ ID NO: 355 are under consideration in this Office Action.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings, including Figures 23A-23E, 25, are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim objection
Claim 25-30 are objected for improperly depending upon withdrawn claim 24. Applicant is required to amend the claims to recite claims 25-30 in independent form
Claim Rejections - Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 1-23, 25-30 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination of process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP §706.03(y).
The Markush grouping of the nucleic acid sequences encoding the polypeptide sequences and that of nucleic acid sequences recited in the instant claims are improper for the following reasons:
All of the members of the alternatively recited nucleic acid sequences encoding the polypeptide sequences and the nucleic acid sequences are not known or disclosed to be functionally equivalent with each other and have a common use, especially when the alternatively recited sequences share insignificant sequence homology.
For instance, SEQ ID NO: 20 has 28.9 identity to elected sequence SEQ ID NO: 564 (see attached alignment). Further, each of SEQ ID NO: 58 has 45.3% identity, SEQ ID NO: 331 has 30.4%, SEQ ID NO: 335 has 32.9% identity, and SEQ ID NO: 445 has 30.8% to elected sequence SEQ ID NO: 564 (see attached alignments). Similarly, all the members of the alternatively recited nucleotide sequences are not known or disclosed to be functionally equivalent with each other and have a common use, especially when the alternatively recited sequences share insignificant sequence homology.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternatives within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-23, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more. The claim recite a naturally occurring protein that is a product of nature. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no other meaningful limitations are recited in the claims. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons stated below.
The claims encompass a naturally occurring polynucleotide from human genome that
that encodes a naturally occurring Cas endonuclease protein. Paul et al. (CRISPR-Cas12a: Functional overview and applications, Biomedical Journal (2020) Vol. 43, pgs. 8-17; IDS filed 04/03/2024) reviews and taches that the CRISPR-Cas systems are classified into two classes (Classes 1 and 2) that are subdivided into six types (types I through VI) where Class 1 (types I, III and IV) systems use multiple Cas proteins in their CRISPR ribonucleoprotein effector nucleases and Class 2 systems (types II, V and VI) use a single Cas protein. Paul et al. teach that Class 1 CRISPR-Cas systems are most commonly found in bacteria and archaea, and comprise ∼90% of all identified CRISPR-Cas loci; and the Class 2 CRISPR-Cas systems, comprising the remaining ∼10%, exists almost exclusively in bacteria and assemble a ribonucleoprotein complex, consisting of a CRISPR RNA (crRNA) and a Cas protein. Thus the encoded Cas endonuclease protein are deemed to be naturally occurring proteins found in bacteria and/or archaea.
The claim does not recite any additional elements other than a naturally-occurring protein that may be purified. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed protein are not markedly different form the naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same structural and functional information and the claim do not recite any additional features that could add significantly more to the exception. Accordingly, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claims 19, 20, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
The “host cell” in claims 19, 20, 28 as currently written reads on a human organism comprising the host cell.
Amending the claims to recite an “isolated host cell” would aid in overcoming the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd Paragraph
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 5-7, 18, 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “the crRNA comprises a crRNA sequence from Table S15C”. The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and indefinite because the claim is referencing limitations that are not set forth in either an independent claim or a dependent claim. A claim should not depend on tables or figures found in the specification for completeness but instead, should be able to stand alone. MPEP 2173.05(s) states that where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant's convenience." Exparte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted).
Claims 6, 7 recites the phrase “polypeptide which comprises one or more mutations” which renders the claim vague and indefinite since the specific one or more mutations are not known and not recited in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the phrase “the vector comprises a viral vector, a retroviral vector, a lentiviral vector, an adenoviral vector, an adeno-associated viral vector, a vaccinia viral vector, a poxviral vector, a herpes simplex viral vector, liposomes, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), cationic polymers, vesicles, or gold nanoparticles” which renders the claim vague and indefinite since it is unclear how the vector can comprise additional vectors and the additional recited products.
Claim 20 recites the phrase “wherein the host cell comprises a prokaryotic cell, a mammalian cell, a human cell or a synthetic cell” which renders the claim vague and indefinite since it is unclear how a host cell can comprise another prokaryotic cell, a mammalian cell, a human cell or a synthetic cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23, 25-30 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 claims are drawn to a broad and widely varying genus of isolated or recombinant polynucleotides encoding a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 564; and genus of nucleic acid sequences at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 565. According to MPEP 2163:
“For each claim drawn to a genus: 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 (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), 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 i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)…”
According to MPEP 2163.02:
“The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an 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, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon "reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter." Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).”
The reference of Chica et al. (Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2005 Aug;16(4):378-84; PTO 892) teaches that the complexity of the structure/function relationship in enzymes has proven to be the factor limiting the general application of rational enzyme modification and design, where rational enzyme modification and design requires in-depth understanding of structure/function relationships. The reference of Singh et al. (Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2017, 18, 1-11; PTO 892) reviews protein engineering methods including directed evolution, rational design, semi-rational design, and de-novo design; and states that despite the availability of a 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 entire publication especially Figs.1 and 3, and page 7, left column, lines 8-17). The reference teachings only provide guidance for searching and screening for the claimed genus isolated or recombinant polynucleotides.
The specification as originally filed does not disclose a representative number of species encompassed by the claimed genus by actual reduction to practice. The specification as originally filed does not provide a correlation between function and/or structure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to predict which specific amino sequences and structures correlate with endonuclease activity, endoribonuclease activity, RNA-guided DNase activity, nickase activity, recognizes or binds crRNAs, and/or is nuclease-deficient.
Hence, the specification does not provide sufficient written description to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that applicants were in possession at the time the application was filed of the claimed broad and widely varying genus of isolated or recombinant polynucleotides encoding a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 564; and genus of nucleic acid sequences at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 565. Dependent claims 2-23, 25-30 are also rejected since they do not correct the defect.
Claims 1-23, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an expression vector comprising a polynucleotide comprising the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 565 encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 564; does not reasonably provide enablement for any other embodiment as recited in 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 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.
According to MPEP 2164.01(a), factors considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue” include, but are not limited to: (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. MPEP§ 2164.04 states that while the analysis and conclusion of a lack of enablement are based on the factors discussed in MPEP § 2164.01(a) and the evidence as a whole, it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the written enablement rejection. The language should focus on those factors, reasons, and evidence that lead the examiner to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or that the scope of any enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. Accordingly, the factors most relevant to the instant rejection are addressed in detail below.
The nature and breadth of the claims encompass any isolated or recombinant polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 564; and any nucleic acid sequence at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 565.
The reference of Chica et al. (Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2005 Aug;16(4):378-84; IDS filed 01/13/2025) teaches that the complexity of the structure/function relationship in enzymes has proven to be the factor limiting the general application of rational enzyme modification and design, where rational enzyme modification and design requires in-depth understanding of structure/function relationships. The reference of Singh et al. (Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2017, 18, 1-11; IDS filed 01/13/2025) reviews protein engineering methods including directed evolution, rational design, semi-rational design, and de-novo design; and states that despite the availability of a 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 entire publication especially Figs.1 and 3, and page 7, left column, lines 8-17). Such protein engineering methods, however, only provide guidance for searching and screening for the claimed polypeptide.
The specification only provides guidance, prediction, and working examples for an expression vector comprising a polynucleotide comprising the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 565 encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 564.
Thus, one skilled in the art must perform an undue amount of trial and error experimentation which includes searching and screening for the recited polynucleotide from from any biological source and determining whether the polynucleotide encodes a polypeptide having endonuclease activity, endoribonuclease activity, RNA-guided DNase activity, nickase activity, recognizes or binds crRNAs, and/or is nuclease-deficient. In the alternative, undue amount of trial and error experimentation which includes making any amino acid mutations including amino acid mutations, substitutions, additions, deletions, and combinations thereof to SEQ ID NO: 564; searching and screening for polypeptide having endonuclease activity, endoribonuclease activity, RNA-guided DNase activity, nickase activity, recognizes or binds crRNAs, and/or is nuclease-deficient; and obtaining the encoding polynucleotide.
Therefore, in view of the overly broad scope of the claims, the specification’s lack of specific guidance and prediction, the specification’s lack of additional working examples, and the amount of experimentation required; it would require undue experimentation for one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Dependent claims 2-23, 25-30 are also rejected because they do not correct the defect.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-23, 25-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 12264328. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
The claims and/or specification of the patent teach the claimed isolated or recombinant polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 564; and any nucleic acid sequence at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 565. Thus, the teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
Claims 1-23, 25-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 50-68 of Application Serial No. 19046116. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
The claims and/or specification of the copending applications teach the claimed isolated or recombinant polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 564; and any nucleic acid sequence at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.1%, 99.2%, 99.3%, 99.4%, 99.5%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 99.8%, 99.9% or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 565. Thus, the teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The closest prior art is the reference of Accession BJX95775 (28-OCT-2021; PTO 892) teaches engineered MG13 nuclease having an amino acid sequence that is 51.0% to SEQ ID NO: 564 and encoding polynucleotide (see attached record).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christian L Fronda whose telephone number is (571)272 0929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternate Fridays between 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 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 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.
/CHRISTIAN L FRONDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652