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 1-13 are pending in the application.
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, drawn to a detergent composition, in the reply filed February 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the methods of Group II cannot be practiced using a detergent composition other than the detergent composition of Group I. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s references cited in the information disclosure statements filed August 16, 2023 and October 12, 2023 disclose methods for cleaning laundry, a hard surface, or an item using a detergent composition other than the detergent composition of Group I, thus providing evidence that the methods of Group II can be practiced using a detergent composition other than the detergent composition of Group I. Applicant also traverses on the ground that there would be no serious search burden to co-examine the claims of Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because the claims of each of Groups I and II recite unique limitations, e.g., the limitations of claim 10 of Group II are not recited in the claims of Group I. As such, a separate search is required for each of Groups I and II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to European application 23172581.3, filed May 10, 2023. A certified copy of each of the foreign priority document has been filed in this application on August 7, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on August 16, 2023 and October 12, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Specification/Informalities
The specification is objected to because the size of the file in the sequence incorporation statement at p. 1, lines 8-10 must be listed in bytes (not kilobytes). See MPEP 2422.03.1. Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms “Alphafold” and “UniProt,” each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application, e.g., p. 3, lines 17, 19-21, 23, 24, and 30. All instances of the term 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, 3, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to in the recitation of “STP” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the entire phrase for which the abbreviation is used (i.e., sodium tripolyphosphate) be recited in the claim.
Claim 3 is objected to in the recitation of “chloropromazine, and 1-nitroso-2-naphthol-3,6-disulfonic acid, and 2-nitroso-1-naphthol-4-sulfonic acid” and in the interest of improving claim form and grammar, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite “chloropromazine, 1-nitroso-2-naphthol-3,6-disulfonic acid, and 2-nitroso-1-naphthol-4-sulfonic acid.”
Claim 7 is objected to in the recitation of “optionally least one additional enzyme” and in the interest of improving claim form and consistency with claim 1, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite “optionally at least one more enzyme.”
Claim 7 is also objected to in the recitation of “the form of liquid enzyme preparations, encapsulated enzyme formulations or granular enzyme formulations, the latter also in the form of co-granulates” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite “the form of liquid enzyme preparations, encapsulated enzyme formulations, granular enzyme formulations, or co-granular enzyme formulations.”
Claim 8 is objected to in the recitation of “claim 1 in the form of a powder detergent” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite “claim 1, wherein the detergent composition is in the form of a powder detergent.”
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 2, 3, and 7 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite in the recitation of “e.g.” in line 2 because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the trademark/trade name “UniProt.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(u). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a polypeptide and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 3 is indefinite in the recitation of “preferably” in lines 1-2 because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the laccase." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may consider an amendment to replace “laccase” with “enzyme having laccase activity.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Callisen et al. (WO 2014/090940 A1; cited on the IDS filed October 12, 2023; hereafter “Callisen”) and as evidenced by Drakontis et al. (Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 48:77-90, 2020; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Drakontis”).
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are drawn to a detergent composition comprising:
1) less phosphate than the amount of phosphate corresponding to 0.2% STP;
2) an enzyme having laccase activity and optionally at least one more enzyme;
3) at least one surfactant; and
4) optionally a laccase oxidase mediator.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “0.2% STP,” the specification at p. 8, lines 12-14 discloses “STP” is an abbreviation for sodium tripolyphosphate, and the specification at p. 3, lines 14-15 discloses all percentages of components are calculated by weight and are calculated based on the total composition unless otherwise indicated. In accordance with the disclosure of the specification, the recitation of “0.2% STP” is interpreted as meaning 0.2% weight of the detergent composition is sodium tripolyphosphate.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “less phosphate than the amount of phosphate corresponding to 0.2% STP,” the specification at p. 8, line 13 discloses the chemical formula of STP is Na5P3O10, which has a molar mass of 367.86 g/mol. Given that the molar mass of P3O105- is 252.91 g/mol, the percent phosphate ion in STP is 68.75% or 0.6875 and the percent of P3O105- in 0.2% STP is 0.1375%. In accordance with the disclosure of the specification, the recitation of “less phosphate than the amount of phosphate corresponding to 0.2% STP” is interpreted as being equivalent to less phosphate than 0.1375% weight of phosphate.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, Callisen teaches a detergent composition comprising a surfactant and an oxidoreductase enzyme, which oxidoreductase enzyme is a laccase enzyme comprised by the enzyme classification EC 1.10.3.2 or any fragment derived therefrom exhibiting laccase activity (p. 37, lines 31-34).
Example 1 of Callisen teaches a detergent teaches a detergent comprising 3.33 g/l in water of a concentrated detergent composition containing 7.2% LAS, 6.6% AEO Biosoft N25-7 (Nl), 4.2% AEOS (SLES), which is a surfactant, 6% MPG, 3% ethanol, 3% TEA, 2.75% cocoa soap, 2.75% soya soap, 2% glycerol, 1 .2% sodium hydroxide, 2% sodium citrate, 1 % sodium formiate, 0.2% DTMPA and 0.2% PCA (p. 46, lines 21-25), which does not comprise phosphate. Callisen teaches the detergent with added laccase and violuric acid or methyl syringate (Tables 2 and 3 at pp. 47-49).
Regarding claim 2, Callisen teaches the laccase of the detergent composition comprises SEQ ID NO: 1 (p. 38, lines 25-26) and teaches the laccase used in Example 1 is SEQ ID NO: 1 (p.45, line 28). The laccase of SEQ ID NO: 1 of Callisen is Myceliophthora thermophila laccase (p. 12, line 24). Callisen does not teach the three-dimensional structure or structural coordinates of the laccase of SEQ ID NO: 1 for calculation of a TM-score with the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31. However, according to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Given that the sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1 of Callisen and UniProt accession number G2QG31 are substantially identical with a sequence identity of 98% (see Appendix for sequence alignment), it is presumed that the three-dimensional structure of the laccase of SEQ ID NO: 1 of Callisen and the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31 have a TM-score of at least 0.60. The examiner has presented evidence or reasoning to show inherency and the burden shifts to applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the enzyme having laccase activity as recited in claim 2 and the laccase of Callisen. See MPEP 2112.V.
Regarding claim 4, Callisen teaches the surfactant may be a non-ionic surfactant (p. 24, lines 22-23) and teaches alkylpolyglycosides (APG) as an exemplary non-ionic surfactant (p. 25, lines 13-19). Although Callisen does not teach APG is a biobased surfactant, evidentiary reference Drakontis teaches APG as a biosurfactant (p. 80, columns 1-2). A “biosurfactant” is considered to be an alternative name for a “biobased surfactant” in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Callisen teaches the enzyme(s) comprised in the detergent composition include one or more enzymes such as a protease (p. 29, lines 33-35).
Therefore, Callisen anticipates claims 1-4 and 6-8 as written.
Alternatively, in view of the cited teachings of Callisen, the detergent composition of claims 1-4 and 6-8 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. One would have been motivated and expected success to make the detergent composition of claims 1-4 and 6-8 because of the explicit teachings of Callisen set forth above.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-8 are anticipated by or, in the alternative, are obvious in view of Callisen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following rejection is raised for compact prosecution in the event applicant provides evidence or reasoning to show a novel or unobvious difference between the enzyme having laccase activity as recited in claim 2 and the laccase of Callisen.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callisen in view of UniProt Database Accession Number G2QG31 (January 2022, 2 pages; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “UniProt G2QG31”).
Claim 2 is drawn to the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the enzyme having laccase activity has a TM-score of at least 0.60 compared to the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31.
The relevant teachings of Callisen as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, as stated above, Callisen teaches the laccase of the detergent composition is Myceliophthora thermophila laccase comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 (p. 12, line 24; p. 38, lines 25-26).
Callisen does not teach the laccase has the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31.
UniProt G2QG31 teaches a laccase from Myceliophthora thermophila (p. 1, top).
In view of the combined teachings of Callisen and UniProt G2QG31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Myceliophthora thermophila laccase of the detergent composition of Callisen with the Myceliophthora thermophila laccase of UniProt G2QG31. One of ordinary skill would have expected success and could have substituted the Myceliophthora thermophila laccase of the detergent composition of Callisen with the Myceliophthora thermophila laccase of UniProt G2QG31 because Callisen taught the detergent composition comprises a Myceliophthora thermophila laccase and UniProt G2QG31 taught a Myceliophthora thermophila laccase. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to make the substitution because, based on the relevant teachings of Callisen and UniProt G2QG31, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have predicted that the Myceliophthora thermophila laccase of UniProt G2QG31 would be equivalent to the Myceliophthora thermophila laccase in the detergent composition of Callisen.
Neither Callisen nor UniProt G2QG31 teaches the three-dimensional structure or structural coordinates of the laccase of UniProt G2QG31 for calculation of a TM-score with the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31. However, according to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. Given that the sequence of the laccase of UniProt G2QG31 is identical to the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31, it is presumed that the three-dimensional structure of the laccase of UniProt G2QG31 and the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31 have a TM-score of at least 0.60. The examiner has presented evidence or reasoning to show inherency and the burden shifts to applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the enzyme having laccase activity as recited in claim 2 and the laccase of Callisen. See MPEP 2112.V.
Therefore, the composition of claim 2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callisen in view of Drakontis.
Claim 5 is drawn to the detergent composition according to claim 4, wherein the biobased surfactant is selected from the group consisting of rhamnolipid and sophorolipid.
The relevant teachings of Callisen as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Callisen further teaches the surfactant of the detergent composition is any surfactant known in the art for use in detergents (p. 24, lines 28-29).
Callisen does not teach rhamnolipid or sophorolipid as the surfactant in the detergent composition.
Drakontis generally teaches an overview on the recent progress made on biosurfactants (p. 77, Abstract). According to Drakontis, biosurfactants have applications in many industries such as laundry detergents, where they are used instead of chemically synthesized surfactants to avoid the toxicity they exert on fresh water living organisms (p. 77, column 2, top). Drakontis teaches rhamnolipids and sophorolipids as common types of biosurfactants and their main applications including detergents (p. 78, column 1 and Table 1).
In view of the combined teachings of Callisen and Drakontis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the surfactant of the detergent composition of Callisen to be rhamnolipids and/or sophorolipids. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the surfactant of the detergent composition of Callisen to be rhamnolipids and/or sophorolipids because Callisen taught the surfactant of the detergent composition is any surfactant known in the art for use in detergents and Drakontis taught rhamnolipids and sophorolipids as common types of biosurfactants for detergent applications, which advantageously avoid the toxicity of chemically synthesized surfactants exerted on fresh water living organisms.
Therefore, the composition of claim 5 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
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 1-8 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.
Claim Interpretation: The claims are drawn to a detergent composition comprising:
1) less phosphate than the amount of phosphate corresponding to 0.2% STP;
2) an enzyme having laccase activity and optionally at least one more enzyme;
3) at least one surfactant; and
4) optionally a laccase oxidase mediator.
The recitation of “detergent” in the preamble of claim 1 is interpreted as an intended use or purpose of the claimed composition and does not further limit the structure or function of the claimed detergent composition.
The recited “enzyme having laccase activity” encompasses a naturally occurring laccase, e.g., Myceliophthora thermophila laccase taught by Callisen.
The recited “surfactant” encompasses a naturally occurring surfactant, e.g., rhamnolipid or sophorolipid.
The recited “laccase oxidase mediator” encompasses a naturally occurring laccase oxidase mediator, e.g., methyl syringate.
The recited “at least one additional enzyme” encompasses a naturally occurring enzyme.
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed detergent composition encompasses a composition of naturally occurring components.
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 evidence of record of a naturally occurring counterpart to the claimed combination, so the combination is compared to the individual components as they occur in nature (see MPEP 2106.04(c).II.A). 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 detergent composition of claims 1-8 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 detergent composition of claims 1-8 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, the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. For these reasons the claim is rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - Statutory Double Patenting
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.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 3-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/318,442 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - Nonstatutory 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of co-pending application 18/318,442 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the enzyme having laccase activity has a TM-score of at least 0.60, e.g., at least 0.65, at least 0.70, at least 0.75, at least 0.80, at least 0.85, at least 0.90, at least 0.91, at least 0.92, at least 0.93, at least 0.94, at least 0.95, at least 0.96, at least 0.97, at least 0.98, at least 0.99, or even 1.0, compared to the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31.
Claim 2 of the reference application is drawn to the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the enzyme having laccase activity has a TM-score of at least 0.60, e.g., at least 0.65, at least 0.70, at least 0.75, at least 0.80, at least 0.85, at least 0.90, at least 0.91, at least 0.92, at least 0.93, at least 0.94, at least 0.95, at least 0.96, at least 0.97, at least 0.98, at least 0.99, or even 1.0, compared to the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:1, wherein the three-dimensional structure is calculated using Alphafold.
The claims of the reference application do not recite the enzyme having laccase activity has a TM-score of at least 0.60 compared to the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31. However, according to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent and given that the sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and UniProt accession number G2QG31 are substantially identical with a sequence identity of 99%, it is presumed that the three-dimensional structure of the laccase of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and the three-dimensional structure of the polypeptide having UniProt accession number G2QG31 have a TM-score of at least 0.60.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claim has not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-8 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 at 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
APPENDIX
PNG
media_image1.png
664
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale