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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Claim 4 is objected to.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, U.S. Non-provisional App. No. 63/340,128 filed 10 May 2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10 May 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 19 May 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner.
Applicant’s specification at para. [0099] (as published) includes a list of cited references. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 21 June 2023 are objected to because:
the drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), which states partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG.". Accordingly, Figures 2-7, 9, and 10-15 should have separate labels “FIG. 2A”, “FIG. 2B”, “FIG. 3A”, “FIG. 3B”, etc., for each partial view, rather than one label “FIGs. 2A-2B” (etc.).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
References to Applicant’s specification are made with respect to the published version of the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code at para. [0099] (citations 12 and 14). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract refers to the purported merits of the invention at lines 3-6; and
The abstract refers to an “approach”, or method, but does not refer to any steps (see (5) above).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “to degrader (D) and…by toxin (T)”, which should be amended to recite “to the degrader (D) and…by the toxin (T)”, to increase clarity and use consistent language with claim 3, from which claim 4 depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11-12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof (see claim interpretation below). 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 Interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites the term “population”. Applicant’s specification at para. [0038] defines the term “population” to refer to a group of individuals that potentially grow together, potentially affect each other's growth environment, and potentially exchange genetic material with each other such that they contribute genetically to the next generation, including but not limited to those individuals in a microbial culture or in a breeding program.
Independent claim 1 recites “assisting population”. Applicant’s specification at para. [0039] defines the term “assisting population” to refer to a population that refers to the growth of another population.
Claim 2 recites “The PAAS method of claim 1, wherein PAAS leads to improved desired function”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, only requires designing a community to “select a desired function”, and then adds an assisting population (A) that generates feedback between the desired function and the fitness impact on a producer. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Here, claim 2 merely recites the intended result of “PAAS”, but does not further limit a claimed limitation.
Claim 11 recites “A method to evolve improved function of interest comprising implementing the method of claim 1”. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02 II. In the instant case, the phrase “to evolve improved function of interest” is an intended use/result of the steps of “implementing the method of claim 1”, and therefore does not have patentable weight.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the function of interest is detoxification of a harmful compound”, which only requires the intended use of “ to evolve improved function of interest” is for detoxification. Therefore, the limitation of claim 12 does not have patentable weight for the same reasons discussed above for claim 11.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1 and 11, and claims dependent therefrom, recite “a) designing a community to select a desired function; and b) introducing an assisting population (A) that generates feedback between the desired function and the fitness impact on the producer”. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 encompass designing any community for any desired function that includes any assisting population capable of generating the recited feedback between function and fitness on any producer.
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 inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). 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 MPEP 2163 II.
However, a review of Applicant’s specification only discloses an example pertaining to bacterial and microbial cell populations and communities in culture. For example Applicant’s specification at para. [0064]-[0090] provides an example for characterizing bacterial growth including specific models and equations (as recited in the dependent claims) for modeling bacterial cell growth. Applicant’s specification at para. [0038] broadly defines a population to encompass a group of any strain, species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, or domain, etc., thus encompassing populations of humans, populations of dogs, etc. However, Applicant’s specification does not describe any other species, genus, family, etc. for which a community is engineered for a certain function and an assisting population capable of providing the claimed feedback. Furthermore, given the complexities of organisms vary significantly within the claimed genus (e.g. humans to dogs to ants to bacteria, etc.), Applicant’s specification does not adequately describe a number of species representative of the claimed genus.
For the reasons discussed above, the specification does not provide a sufficient disclosure of the limitations above recited in claims 1-12 to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention at the time the application was filed. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
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 1-12 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 1 and 3, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “the desired function” in step b) of claim 1 and in line 1 of claim 3. Claim 1 previously recites “a desired function that has no significant fitness impact…” and “designing a community to select a desired function”. As a result, it is not clear if the desired function in step b) of claim 1 and line 1 of claim 3 is referring to the desired function with no significant fitness impact in the preamble or referring to the desired function in step a) of claim 1. If Applicant intends for the desired function to refer to the function in the preamble, then the phrase “no significant fitness impact” is further indefinite because the term “significant” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For purpose of examination, the desired function is interpreted to refer to the desired function in step a) of claim 1 (which does not require the “no significant fitness impact” limitation).
Claim 2 is indefinite for recitation of “wherein PAAS leads to improved desired function”. Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: “wherein" clauses. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In the instant case, it is not clear if the wherein clause is simply expressing the intended result of the “PAAS” method of claim 5, or if the limitation is intended to
Claim 5, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “The PAAS method of claim 4, wherein a computational model with equations is employed to capture…” Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: “wherein" clauses. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Here it is not clear “if a computational model with equations is employed…” is merely expressing an intended result or use of the claimed invention, if the wherein clause is intended to require some step of the method comprises employing a computational model, or if the claim intends for the method to further comprise a step of capturing major aspects of population dynamics using the model. If Applicant does intend to require a step of employing a computational model, it is not clear which manipulative step of claims 1 and 3-4, claim 5 is intending to require uses the computation model. For purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to recite an intended result of introducing the assisted population (A). The wherein clauses of claims 6-9 only further limit the “computational model” (i.e. the intended use) of claim 5, and therefore, claims 6-9 also are interpreted as recited an intended use or result of the claimed invention.
Claim 5, and claims dependent therefrom, are indefinite for recitation of “major aspects of population dynamics”. The term “major” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “major” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean “capture aspects of population dynamics”.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “the model (Implnt)”…said model with equations is presented as follows…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims because claim 5 only recites a “computational model” but does not recite a model (Implnt). As a result, it is not clear if the computational model of claim 5 is intended to be the same model as the “model (Implnt)” or if these are separate models. If they are separate models, later recitation of “said model” is indefinite as its not clear which model is being referenced. For purpose of examination, claim 6 is interpreted to refer to the computational model of claim 5.
Claim 6 is indefinite for recitation of “with equations presented as follows:…”
PNG
media_image1.png
143
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The metes and bounds of the equations are unclear because at least the variables rA-, ρT,, sA, K (including KA and KD), and dD. are not defined by the claim. As a result, the metes and bounds of the resulting equation are unclear. To overcome the rejection, the claims can be amended to define each variable in the claims.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “…wherein the model (ExpEnz) provides an enzymatic effect, said model…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims because claim 5 only recites a “computational model” but does not recite a model (ExpEnz). As a result, it is not clear if the computational model of claim 5 is intended to be the same model as the “model (ExpEnz)” or if these are separate models. If they are separate models, later recitation of “said model” is indefinite as its not clear which model is being referenced. For purpose of examination, claim 7 is interpreted to refer to the computational model of claim 5.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “equations is presented as follows:…”, however, at least the variables rA-, ρT,, sA, K (including KA and KD), ηD, γ, ς, E (is this a density?), and dE are not defined by the claims. As a result, the metes and bounds of the resulting equation are unclear. To overcome the rejection, the claims can be amended to define each variable in the claims.
Claim 7 is indefinite for recitation of “wherein a T-degrading enzyme (produced by D)”. It is unclear if the limitation in the parenthesis is merely exemplary or if this is a required limitation. Clarification is requested. If the limitation is required, the parenthesis should be removed. For purpose of examination, the limitation in parenthesis is considered exemplary.
Claim 8 is indefinite for recitation of “the model (ExpRes)…said model”, for the same reasons discussed above for claims 6-7 with respect to claim 5. For purpose of examination, claim 8 is interpreted to refer to the computational model of claim 5.
Claim 8 is indefinite for recitation of “equations is presented as follows:…” because at least the variables, rA-, ρT,, K (including KA, KD, KR), βR, αD, R (is this a density?), and dD are not defined by the claims. To overcome the rejection, the claims can be amended to define each variable in the claims.
Claim 9 is indefinite for recitation of “the model (ImpLD)…said model”, for the same reasons discussed above for claims 6-8 with respect to claim 5. For purpose of examination, claim 9 is interpreted to refer to the computational model of claim 5.
Claim 9 is indefinite for recitation of “equations is presented as follows:…” because at least the variables, rA-, ρT, and K (including KA, KD) are not defined by the claims. To overcome the rejection, the claims can be amended to define each variable in the claims.
Claim 10 is indefinite for recitation of “The PAAS method of claim 4, wherein skew normal distributions for growth rates are generated following the equation…” for similar reasons discussed above regarding the wherein clause for claim 5. Specifically, is not clear “wherein skew normal distributions for growth rates are generated…” is merely expressing an intended result or use of the claimed invention, if the wherein clause is intended to require some step of the method comprises generating normal distributions for growth rates, or if the wherein clause intends for the method to further comprise generating skew normal distributions for growth rates. If Applicant does intend to require a step of employing a computational model, it is not clear which manipulative step of claims 1 and 3-4, claim 10 is intending to require generating the growth rates. For purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to recite an intended result of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite for recitation of recitation of “equation presented as follows:…” because at least the variables xsn is not defined by the claim. To overcome the rejection, the claims can be amended to define each variable in the claims.
Claim 10 is indefinite for recitation of “…wherein the distribution is more skewed towards small (/large) values, when α is negative (/positive)”. First, it is not clear if “the distribution” is referring to the “normal distribution” in lines 4-5 or to one of the “skew normal distributions” in line 1. If the distribution is intended to refer to a skew normal distribution it is further unclear which skew normal distribution is being referenced. Furthermore, it is not clear if the limitations “(/large) and (/positive) are merely exemplary, or if these are intended to be required by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites “The PAAS method of claim 1, wherein PAAS leads to improved desired function”. For the reasons discussed in claim interpretation above, claim 2 merely recites the intended result of “PAAS”, but does not further limit a claimed limitation. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “The PAAS method of claim 4, wherein a computational model with equations is employed…”, which is interpreted to recite an intended use or result of claim 1, as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. Claims 6-9 only refer to the “computational model” of claim 5, and thus are part of the intended result expressed by claim 5 above. Therefore, claims 5-9 fail to further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 4.
Claim 10 recites “The PAAS method of claim 4, wherein skew normal distributions for growth rates are generated following the equation…”. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the limitation is interpreted as an intended use or result of the claimed invention, and therefore, claim 10 fails to further limit the manipulative steps of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the function of interest is detoxification of a harmful compound”. As discussed above in claim interpretation, the limitation of claim 12 only requires the intended use of “to evolve improved function of interest” is for detoxification, which Is not a claim limitation. Therefore, the limitation of claim 12 does not have patentable weight for the same reasons discussed above for claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claims 1 and 11 being representative) is directed a method. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas:
a) designing a community to select a desired function; and
b) introducing an assisting population (A) that generates feedback between the desired function and the fitness impact on the producer.
The identified claim limitations fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity for the following reasons. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. C. states the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The above limitations of claims 1 and 11 encompass managing breeding among humans to design a community with a physical ability; for example, Applicant’s specification at para. [0038] defines populations as encompassing a group of individuals that grow together, and include individuals in a breeding program. Similarly, introducing an assisted population, which encompasses humans as discussed above, to generate a feedback between the desired function and the fitness impact on a producer, involves managing interactions between one human population (the assisted population) and another human population (the community), such that there is feedback between the desired function of the community and the fitness impact. Therefore, these limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
The step of designing a community to select a desired function is broadly recited and encompasses mentally analyzing individuals to select individuals with a given function for inclusion in a community. Therefore, this limitation further recites a mental process.
The step of introducing the assisted population that generates feedback is broadly recited, and encompasses simply determining and writing down for presentation to another human (i.e. introducing), the assisted population, and thus recites a mental process.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12 further recite an abstract idea and/or are part of the abstract idea of claim 1. Dependent claims 2 and 5-10 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, from which it depends. Dependent claim 3 further limits the desired function to be detoxification by a degrader on a Toxin, and thus is part of the abstract idea of designing a community discussed above. Dependent claim 4 further limits the assisting population to provide a growth benefit to degrader and to be inhibited by the toxin, and thus is part of the abstract idea of introducing an assisting population (A) of claim 1. Dependent claim 12 fails to further limit claim 11, and thus is part of the abstract idea of claim 11. Therefore, claims 1-12 recite an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements
Therefore, the claims as a whole do no integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Thus, claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claims do not include any additional steps appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite any additional elements.
Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea (and/or natural correlation) without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ducal (2019).
Cited reference: Ducal et al. US 2019/0218531
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ducal discloses a method for engineering a microbial community ([0008]; Abstract), comprising the following steps:
Ducal discloses designing microbial communities for the degradation of a toxin (i.e. a desired function) ([0008]; [0020]; [0060]-[0061], e.g. P. putida engineered to degrade 2,4-DNT; FIG. 13).
Ducal discloses adding a population of encapsulated cyanobacterial cells S. elongatus CscB+ (i.e. an assisting population) to create a co-culture mixture, wherein the encapsulated cyanobacterial cells secrete sucrose, allowing P. putida strains to grow on the secreted sucrose ([0066]-[0067]; FIG. 13K). Ducal discloses the P. putida strains degrade the toxin 2,4-DNT, which prevents 2,4-DNT from killing the encapsulated cyanobacterial cells, thus allowing for more secreted sucrose which facilitates P. putida growth (i.e. introducing the assisted population generates feedback between the desired degradation function and the growth/fitness impact on the producer). (FIG. 13K).
Regarding claim 3, Ducal discloses the desired function is the degradation of 2,4-DNT by P. putida (i.e. a toxin degraded by a degrader), wherein 2,4-DNT does not inhibit P. putida (FIG. 13K; [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Ducal discloses the encapsulated cyanobacterial cells (i.e. the assisting population) secretes sucrose which allows P. putida to grow (i.e. provides a growth benefit to the degrader) ([0067]; FIG. 13K), and the encapsulated cyanobacterial cells are inhibited by the 2,4-DNT (FIG. 13K).
Dependent claims 2, 5-10, and 12 fail to further limit the subject matter of claims 1, 4, and 11 respectively, for the reasons discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) regarding the limitations merely expressing an intended use or result of the invention. Therefore, claims 2, 5-10, and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1, 4, and 11 respectively.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN L MINCHELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6485. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:00 M-Th.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights