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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group IV, including claims 28-31, drawn to a recombinant polynucleotide, a DNA construct and a transgenic plant or plant cell comprising the construct, in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election without traverse of species of polypeptide sequence of SEAQ ID NO:20 and the corresponding nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-27 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/16/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Therefore claims 1-32 are pending and claims 28-31 along with elected species of SEQ ID NOs: 2 and 20 are examined in this office actions.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 objected to because of the following informalities: since the word “an IPD126 polypeptide” is inserted in mid-sentence, Applicant are advised to insert the word for example between commas after the word “an insecticidal polypeptide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 77-78 Table 1-foot notes, Scores states 1 - stunting; 1 - no activity. Applicant are advised to 0 - no activity since the lowest score in Table 1 is 0 to be the lowest score and same score of 1 should not have different effects.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The Figure is objected to because it fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84.(u)(1) which states:
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). 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." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Applicant must delete “FIG. 1" from the drawing and any reference in the specification should say -- the figure -- without any number designation.
Claim interpretation
In claim 28 recitation of term “recombinant polynucleotide” is interpreted as the applicant describes “in various embodiments, the recombinant nucleic acid molecules encoding IPD126 polypeptides can contain less than about 5 kb, 4 kb, 3 kb, 2 kb, 1 kb, 0.5 kb or 0.1 kb of nucleic acid sequences that naturally flank the nucleic acid molecule in genomic DNA of the cell from which the nucleic acid is derived.” (Spec, pages 44 and 45, lines 28-31 and lines 1-8), thus a recombinant polynucleotide contains nucleotide segment with more sequences than the claimed sequences.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 09/16/2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the withdrawn claims 1-27 are recited with identifiers “(Original)”. Applicants are advised to recite the withdrawn claims 1-27 with correct identifier of “(Withdrawn)”. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
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 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims are drawn to a recombinant polynucleotide encoding an insecticidal polypeptide, which is an IPD126 polypeptide, comprising an amino acid sequence having greater than 80% sequence identity compared to the amino acid and polynucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 2 respectively.
Applicant discloses SEQ ID NO: 20 and 2 were protein and DNA segment isolated from Pantoea agglomerans strain PMC3671E9-1 (NRRL Deposit No. B-67698) as IPD126Aa-2 Protein and DNA respectively (Spec, page 5-6, Table 1, page 18).
The claims recite the additional element that the polynucleotide is recombinant. However, “recombinant” does not confer any structure, and merely recites how the nucleic acid or protein was made. Furthermore, Applicant describes “a recombinant nucleic acid molecules encoding IPD126 polypeptides can contain less than about 5 kb, 4 kb, 3 kb, 2 kb, 1 kb, 0.5 kb or 0.1 kb of nucleic acid sequences that naturally flank the nucleic acid molecule in genomic DNA of the cell from which the nucleic acid is derived.” (Spec, page 45, lines 5-8). Thus, these claims are not directed to significantly more than products of nature.
The claims are interpreted as “product by process claim” wherein [E]ven though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." It is only given weight for structure that is implied by the process of making (see MPEP 2113).
To withdraw this rejection applicants would need to specifically claim the gene encoding the protein is operably linked to a heterologous promoter or heterologous regulatory sequence.
Thus, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Scope of Enablement
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 28-31 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 a polynucleotide identified as SEQ ID NO:2 that encodes an insecticidal polypeptide which is an IPD126 polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 20, a DNA construct comprising the polynucleotide and a heterologous regulatory sequence operably linked to the recombinant polynucleotide and plant or plant cell comprising the construct, does not reasonably provide enablement for a recombinant polynucleotide encoding an insecticidal polypeptide, which is an IPD126 polypeptide, comprising an amino acid sequence having greater than 80% sequence identity compared to the amino acid and polynucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 2 respectively, and a DNA construct comprising the polynucleotide and a heterologous regulatory sequence operably linked to the recombinant polynucleotide and plant or plant cell comprising the construct. 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.
An “analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.” MPEP 2164.01. “A conclusion of lack of enablement means that. . . the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention [i.e. commensurate scope] without undue experimentation.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2164.01.
In In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988), several factors implicated in determination of whether a disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue” are identified. These factors 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. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). No single factor is independently determinative of enablement; rather “[i]t is improper to conclude that a disclosure is not enabling based on an analysis of only one of the above factors while ignoring one or more of the others.” MPEP 2164.01. Likewise, all factors may not be relevant to the enablement analysis of any individual claim.
The Breadth of the Claims and nature of invention:
Claims recites large genus of insecticidal polypeptide, which is an IPD126 polypeptide, comprising any amino acid sequence having greater than 80% sequence identity compared to the amino acid and polynucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NO: 20.
Claims recite a DNA construct comprising the recombinant polynucleotide and a heterologous regulatory sequence operably linked to the recombinant polynucleotide and a transgenic plant or plant cell comprising the DNA construct.
Claim requires large genus of any amino acid sequence having greater than 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 20 to have any insecticidal activity.
For example, Proteins with 80% identity to 1421 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:20 encompass amino acids that would have ~284 amino acid changes (i.e., substitutions, deletions, insertions, or additions) relative to SEQ ID NO:20, and this encompasses a genus of proteins that includes at least ~20284 molecules. For this reason, the genus of proteins having at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NO: 20 is large genus of molecules.
The state of the prior art:
Guo et al. (Published: 2004, Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(25), 9205-9210) (Included in IDS submitted on 10/17/2025) teaches that while proteins are fairly tolerant to mutations resulting in single amino acid changes, increasing the number of substitutions additively increases the probability that the protein will be inactivated (page 9205, right. col., Paragraph 2).
Sanahuja et al. (Published: 2011, Journal: Plant biotechnology journal, 9(3), 283-300) (Included in IDS submitted on 10/17/2025) teaches different strains of BT produce different type of toxin and each of which affects a narrow taxonomic group of insects (Sanahuja, abstract). It further teaches BT toxins require alkaline environment and presence of specific protease which lead the innocuous pro-toxin into active form to be activated in the insect gut making it to have narrow host range (Sanahuja, page 284, left column, first paragraph).
Wu et al. (Published: 2007, Journal: Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics, 5(2), 102-110) (Included in IDS submitted on 10/17/2025) teaches that each cry protein only has activity against one or few insect species (Wu, abstract). Furthermore, Sanahuja teaches about creation of resistant insects because of selection pressure of insecticides and the mode of action of BT toxins for binding to specific receptor on midgut epithelial leading to evolve resistance to insects and which leads to further unpredictable activity of disclosed protein against an insect (Page 293, left third column).
Applicant discloses SEQ ID NO: 20 and 2 were protein and DNA segment isolated from Pantoea agglomerans strain PMC3671E9-1 (NRRL Deposit No. B-67698) as IPD126Aa-2 Protein and DNA respectively (Spec, page 5-6, Table 1, page 18).
Walterson et al. (Published: 2015, Journal: FEMS microbiology reviews, 39(6), 968-984) (Included in IDS submitted on 10/17/2025) teaches strains of P. agglomerans has been found to be epiphytotic to plants for example cabbage, leek tomato etc. and parasitic to plants for example pea, sweet corn, sweet potato etc. causing various diseases for example seed and ball rot in cotton, red stripe in rice (Walterson, page 972, table 2) and P. agglomerans have various effects of colonizing insects for example pea aphid, fruit fly etc. (page 973, table 3) showing the various proteins produced by P. agglomerans have distinctly different effects to plant and insects.
Therefore, claiming such a large group of protein species in claim 28, reciting a diverse protein with greater than 80% sequence identity compared to SEQ ID NO: 20 have insecticidal activity of undisclosed insect species would require trial and error experimentation with different species and multiple sequences.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
Amount of guidance/existence of working examples are insufficient to cover the scope of the claim.
Specification teaches in Example 4, process of an Active protein identification and confirmation, wherein the PMC3671E9-1 DNA fragment containing IPD126Aa-l (SEQ ID NO: 19), IPD126Aa-2 (SEQ ID NO: 20), IPD126-3 and IPD126Aa-4 (SEQ ID NO: 22) were subcloned into E. coli and the total protein extract from the transformed E. coli cells showed strong activity against Western corn rootworm (WCRW, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera), confirming the insecticidal activity of these proteins (Spec, page 77, lines 6-9, page 5-6, Table 1). However, since four proteins were tested combinedly, it is not clear how does individual protein would have effect on WCRW, for example does IPD126Aa-2 (SEQ ID NO: 20) protein of the instant claimed species of sequence would have any effect individually as insecticidal protein?
Specification further teaches example of life culture assay for combined protein results in Table 1 and it clearly showed the PMC3671E3-1 (SEQ ID NO: 37) containing all three IPD26 genes (page 77, lines 1214) when tested in multiple insect target it has no activity (0 rating) against fall armyworm (FAW) and corn earworm (CEW) in all the test of culture, spent media, and washed cell pellet (page 77 and 78, lines 19-23, Table 1, see table 1 below).
Applicant defines "IPD126 polypeptide," and "IPD126 protein" as used herein interchangeably refers to a polypeptide(s) having insecticidal activity including but not limited to insecticidal activity against one or more insect pests of the Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, and/or Coleoptera orders (Spec, page 41, lines 20-24). Applicant teaches pesticidal and/or insecticidal activity refers to an activity of compound, composition, and or method that protects a plant and/or plant part from a pathogen, pest, or insect (Spec, page 41, lines 20-24).
The specification suggests that the amino acid sequence variants of an IPD126 polypeptide can be prepared by mutations in the DNA (Spec, page 42, lines 30-31). In some aspects, the changes encoded in the amino acid sequence will not substantially affect the function of the protein and such variants will possess a desired pesticidal activity (Spec, page 43, lines 2-4). Furthermore, specification suggests Conservative amino acid substitutions may be made at one or more predicted nonessential amino acid residues. A "nonessential" amino acid residue is a residue that can be altered from the wild-type sequence of an IPD126 polypeptide without altering the biological activity (Spec, page 43, lines 7-9). Applicant further suggests amino acid substitution may be made in nonconserved region that retain function (Spec, page 43, line 22).
The specification suggests making variants by any of a number of diversities generating protocols, including recombination and mutagenesis (Spec, page 44, lines 4-15). However, the specification provides no teaching of domains or motifs required for function of the disclosed protein IPD126 as SEQ ID NO: 19. Thus, making these variants must be done blindly or one of skill in the art must first determine for themselves what these domains or motifs are. Such an analysis and making variants constitutes undue trial and error experimentation.
The specification suggests performing domain shuffling (Spec, page 44, lines 4-15). However, the specification does not teach domains of this protein nor does it teach which domains or other proteins to use in domain shuffling. Thus, using this method must be done by undue trial and error experimentation.
The specification suggests making conservative substitutions in nonessential residues and making nonconservative substitutions in nonconserved regions (Spec, page 43, lines 7-8 and lines 22-24). However, the specification does not teach any nonessential residues and does not teach nonconserved regions. As there are no closely related proteins taught in the specification or present in the prior art, conserved regions cannot be identified and used to identify nonconserved regions and potential nonessential residues. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art must use random mutagenesis to make conservative and nonconservative substitutions. Making large numbers of random amino acid substitutions in proteins is unpredictable.
The level of predictability in the art:
Since there are many kinds of insects and the working example shows protein disclosed in SEQ ID NO: 20 has not shown to have activity against any insects singly and other than resistance to WCRW when combined with IPD126Aa-l (SEQ ID NO: 19) IPD126-3 and IPD126Aa-4 (SEQ ID NO: 22) and given Sanahuja’s teaching of different strains of BT produce different type of toxin and each of which effects a narrow taxonomic group of insects (Sanahuja, abstract) and its further teaching of clear potential to evolve resistance in insects (Sanahuja, Page 293, right third column), the structure in SEQ ID NO: 20, unlikely to have function of protecting all the species of insects as recited in independent claim 28, and claims 29-31 dependent thereof, and it is unpredictable what effect a disclosed diverse proteins would have in different insect species, and it is unclear that they would have any function, so one of skill in the art would not know how to use these proteins that do not have any known effect from the transgene.
The existence of working examples:
The Specification or state of the art does not teach a person with skill in the art how to make and/or use the subject matter within the full scope of these claims because:
Applicant does not teach how to make and use the large genus of IPD126 polypeptide comprising any amino acid sequence having greater than 80% sequence identity compared to the amino acid and polynucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NO: 20 (claim 28) that would have insecticidal property.
Applicant does not teach recombinant polynucleotide of SEQ ID NO:1 would encode for any insecticidal protein by itself.
Applicant does not teach any DNA construct comprising the recombinant polynucleotide and a heterologous regulatory sequence operably linked to the recombinant polynucleotide and a transgenic plant or plant cell comprising the DNA construct wherein the protein would have any insecticidal activity (claims 30-31).
Applicant does not teach large genus of any amino acid sequence having greater than 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 20 would have any insecticidal activity to any species of insects.
Thus, making and analyzing proteins with up to 284 amino acid additions, deletions and substitutions that also have insecticidal activity against undisclosed insects require undue experimentation.
It does not appear that a protein with greater than 80% identity to SEQ ID NO:20 can be found by random screening of thousands or millions of bacterial isolates without undue trial and error experimentation.
Lack of a working example is a critical factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. See MPEP § 2164.
Genetech, 108 F.3d at 1366, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion” and “[p]atent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable”.
In the absence of guidance from either the instant disclosure or the art, it would require undue trial and error experimentation for a skilled artisan to make and use the broadly claimed polynucleotides, with no reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a protein variant having active pesticidal protein that act against insects of order of Lepidoptera in different species of transgenic plants.
Thus, in view of the unpredictability associated with combinatorial substitutions in a protein, the lack of enabling guidance from either the instant disclosure or the art, and breath and diversity of the embodiments encompassed by the claimed genus, the lack of sufficient working examples, and the level of the art at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art must rely on undue trial and error experimentation to make and test the numerous polynucleotides encompassed by the broad genera, in order to make and/or use the invention within the full scope of these Claims.
For at least this reason, the Specification does not teach a person with skill in the art how to make and/or use the subject matter within the full scope of these Claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The claims are free of prior art. The closest prior art is Hey et al. (US Patent No.: US 7491,698 B2, Date of Patent: Feb. 17, 2009). Hey et al. teaches SEQ ID NO:60 which has ~63% identity to SEQ ID NO:20 of applicant and it is for SepB protein (Col. 11, lines 18-49) from m Serratia entomophila (GenBank Accession No. AAG09643. 1) (Col. 14, lines 15-17). The patentable distinction is Hey et al.’s protein of SEQ ID NO:60 is not a IPD126 protein having 80% sequence identity to Applicant’s SEQ IDNO:20.
Alignment of SEQ ID NO:20 to Issued_Patents_AA database:
RESULT 5
US-10-754-115-60
(NOTE: this sequence has 5 duplicates in the database searched)
Sequence 60, US/10754115
Patent No. 7491698
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Hey, Timothy
APPLICANT: Schleper, Amanda
APPLICANT: Bevan, Scott
APPLICANT: Bintrim, Scott
APPLICANT: Mitchell, Jon
APPLICANT: Li, Ze Sheng
APPLICANT: Ni, Weiting
APPLICANT: Zhu, Baolong
APPLICANT: Merlo, Don
APPLICANT: Apel-Birkhold, Patricia
APPLICANT: Meade, Thomas
TITLE OF INVENTION: Mixing and Matching TC Proteins for Pest Control
FILE REFERENCE: DAS-104XC1
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/10/754,115
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2004-01-07
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 60/441,723
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2003-01-21
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 64
SEQ ID NO 60
LENGTH: 1428
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Serratia entomophila
Query Match 63.1%; Score 4749; Length 1428;
Best Local Similarity 62.7%;
Matches 893; Conservative 172; Mismatches 350; Indels 10; Gaps 5;
Qy 1 MQNTDQMSLTPPSLPSGGGAVTGLKGDMSGAGPDGAATLNLPLPISPGRGYAPSLSLGYH 60
||| |::| |:||||||||||||||:: |||||||||::|||:||||||||: :| ||
Db 1 MQNHQDMAITAPTLPSGGGAVTGLKGDIAAAGPDGAATLSIPLPVSPGRGYAPTGALNYH 60
Qy 61 SRNGNGVFGAGWSCGQMAIRLQTRKGVPFYDGSDVFTAPDGEVLVPALDASGKTEVRTTT 120
||:||| || || | |:: :|| | | || :| || |||||||||| |:| | | |
Db 61 SRSGNGPFGIGWGIGGAAVQRRTRNGAPTYDDTDEFTGPDGEVLVPALTAAGTQEARQAT 120
Qy 121 TLLGENLGGTFTVQTYRSRVETDFSRLERWVSQADAAADFWLIYSPDGQIHLLGRNPQAR 180
:||| | ||:| || |||| | ||||||: : :||::|:||||: ||||| |||
Db 121 SLLGINPGGSFNVQVYRSRTEGSLSRLERWLPADETETEFWVLYTPDGQVALLGRNAQAR 180
Qy 181 VSNPEDTTQTAAWLIESSVSASGEQIYWQYRQEDELGCTQDEKTAHAHALAQRYLVAVWY 240
:||| |||| ||:||||| :|||:|:||| ||: || : |: || | |||| |||||
Db 181 ISNPTAPTQTAVWLMESSVSLTGEQMYYQYRAEDDDGCDEAERDAHPQAGAQRYPVAVWY 240
Qy 241 GNKAASRTLPGLLSVPAAGSWLFTLVLDYGERTTDPATPPAWLSPGSGTWLCRQDVFSSW 300
||: |:|||| |:| |: |||| || |||||:: : ||| :|||| |||||| || :
Db 241 GNRQAARTLPALVSTPSMDSWLFILVFDYGERSSVLSEAPAWQTPGSGEWLCRQDCFSGY 300
Qy 301 EYGFELRTRRLCRQVLMYHDVAALAGKPGSDAVPQLVTRLLLDYNLSPSLTTLKTAQQAA 360
|:|| ||||||||||||:| : ||| |:: | |::|||||| ||||: |: | |
Db 301 EFGFNLRTRRLCRQVLMFHYLGVLAGSSGANDAPALISRLLLDYRESPSLSLLENVHQVA 360
Qy 361 WEADGTLRSLPPLAFSWQTFPSTPEKSVSWQQRNDMGKLNPQQPYQMVDLHGEGLAGILY 420
:|:||| :|| || |||| || :|| |:|||||: ||||:|||:|||: ||||
Db 361 YESDGTSCALPALALGWQTF--TPPTLSAWQTRDDMGKLSLLQPYQLVDLNGEGVVGILY 418
Qy 421 QDSGAWWYREPVRQLGDDDNAVTWAAARPLPAFPALRKGGMLLDLDGDGYLEWVVTAPGV 480
|||||||||||||| ||| :|||| || || ||| |:| ||:||| ||||||||||
Db 419 QDSGAWWYREPVRQSGDDPDAVTWGAAAALPTMPALHNSGILADLNGDGRLEWVVTAPGV 478
Qy 481 AGCYAQTPEQCWQRFTPLSALPVEYRHSRMEITDVTGAGLADMLLIGPKSVRLYSGSGRG 540
|| | :|| : | ||||||||||| | : : |: |||| ||:||||:||||||| |
Db 479 AGMYDRTPGRDWLHFTPLSALPVEYAHPKAVLADILGAGLTDMVLIGPRSVRLYSGKNDG 538
Qy 541 WKKARTVMQDSGITLPVPGTNARVMVAFSDMAGSGQQHLTEIKASGVRYWPSLGHGRFAA 600
| | || | :|||||| : | :||||||||||||||||::|:||||||:||||||
Db 539 WNKGETVQQTERLTLPVPGVDPRTLVAFSDMAGSGQQHLTEVRANGVRYWPNLGHGRFGQ 598
Qy 601 PVTLPGFSQPAETFNPAQLYLADVDGSGTTDLIYALSDHLLVWLNQSGNRFDEPFRIDLP 660
|| :||||| |||| |: ||| |||||||||||:|| |::: ||||| | || : ||
Db 599 PVNIPGFSQSVTTFNPDQILLADTDGSGTTDLIYAMSDRLVIYFNQSGNYFAEPHTLLLP 658
Qy 661 EGVRYDNTCSLQVADIQGLGISSLVLSVPHPTPRHWVCHLTAEKPWLLDGMNNNMGARHT 720
:||||| |||||||||||||: ||:|:||| | ||||||:|:|||||:||||||||||
Db 659 KGVRYDRTCSLQVADIQGLGVPSLLLTVPHVAPHHWVCHLSADKPWLLNGMNNNMGARHA 718
Qy 721 LCYRSSAQFWLDEKAAATADRPAPACYMPFALHTLSRTEVSDEITGNRLTRTIRYRHGVW 780
| |||| |||||||| | | :||||:|| |||| |: | |||||||| : ||||||
Db 719 LHYRSSVQFWLDEKAEALAAGSSPACYLPFTLHTLWRSVVQDEITGNRLVSDVLYRHGVW 778
Qy 781 DRREREFRGFGFVEVSDAEALAKQ---TEGMSAPAVKRSWYATGLTAVDAQLPDEFWKGD 837
| :|||||||||||: | : || | || :| |:| |:|||||: ||| :||: :|: |
Db 779 DGQEREFRGFGFVEIRDTDTLASQGTATE-LSMPSVSRNWYATGVPAVDERLPETYWQND 837
Qy 838 HAAFAGFTPRFTTGYGEQEAALDTISDDTRFWLTRAIRGTLLRSELYGADGSSQAGIPYS 897
|||| | ||| | || | | | ||| ||::| ||||||||||||||| ||||
Db 838 AAAFADFATRFTVGSGEDEQTY-TPDDSKTFWLQRALKGILLRSELYGADGSSQADIPYS 896
Qy 898 ITESRPQVRLITEAGNSPVVWPSVIENRASHYERVSSDPQCGQQILLTSNEYGQPLRQIG 957
:|||||||||: |: ||||| |:| | ||| :|||| || :| |:||| ||||:
Db 897 VTESRPQVRLVEANGDYPVVWPMGAESRTSVYERYHNDPQCQQQAVLLSDEYGFPLRQVS 956
Qy 958 VSYPRRTRPDASPYPDDLPDGLFADSFDEQQQALRLTLTQSSWHTLKDISSGIWLPAVAD 1017
|:|||| :||| || |||:|:||||| ||| | ||| | | :| | || :|:
Db 957 VNYPRRPPSADNPYPASLPATLFANSYDEQQQILRLGLQQSSAHHLVSLSEGHWLLGLAE 1016
Qy 1018 ATRSDLFVHQAAQVPPAGLTLENLLTDSALLTSPVFG---GQSQTWYQDSAGQASTTSPD 1074
|:| |:| : | || |||||:|| :|:: | || | || || |: :|
Db 1017 ASRDDVFTYSADNVPEGGLTLEHLLAPESLVSDSQVGTLAGQQQVWYLDSQDVATVAAPP 1076
Qy 1075 FPLRPSFSETAALDEAQVSALSADIDQTKLEQAGYTRSAYLFARSGEEGKTLWTVRQGYI 1134
| : :| ||| ||| ||:|:| | |||||| :| ||| | | : ||| |||:
Db 1077 LPPKVAFIETAVLDEGMVSSLAAYIVDEHLEQAGYRQSGYLFPRGREAEQALWTQCQGYV 1136
Qy 1135 TFSSADHFYLPIAAQQTLLTGKTTVTYDPYDCVVLQAKDAAGAVTSATYDWRFLAPTQIT 1194
|:: |:||:||:: : ::||| ||| | ||||: | :|||| ||:| |||||| | ::|
Db 1137 TYAGAEHFWLPLSFRDSMLTGPVTVTRDAYDCVITQWQDAAGIVTTADYDWRFLTPVRVT 1196
Qy 1195 DINDNLKSVTLDALGRVTSQRFSGSENGKPAGYSDDAFPLPASADAALALSAPLPVAQCI 1254
| ||||:|||||||||||: || |:||| |||| :| | |||||:||||||||:
Db 1197 DPNDNLQSVTLDALGRVTTLRFWGTENGIATGYSDATLSVPDGAAAALALTAPLPVAQCL 1256
Qy 1255 IYVPDSWMLTGEQQQPPHVVTLLTDRYDSDSQQQIRQQVVFSDGFGRVLQAASRQVNGEA 1314
:|| ||| :: ||||| | |||||||: ||:|||| ||||||| ||:|:|| | |
Db 1257 VYVTDSWGDDDNEKMPPHVVVLATDRYDSDTGQQVRQQVTFSDGFGRELQSATRQAEGNA 1316
Qy 1315 WQRAANGSFVADPNGSPVLTETTFRWAVTGRTEYDNKGQAIRTYQPYFLDSWKYVRDDSA 1374
||| :| | :| || | |||||||| |||||| :| |||||||||:|| ||||
Db 1317 WQRGRDGKLVTASDGLPVTVATNFRWAVTGRAEYDNKGLPVRVYQPYFLDSWQYVSDDSA 1376
Qy 1375 RHDLYADTHYYDPVGRERQVITAKGLLRRVTYTPWFVVSEDENDT 1419
| |||||||:||| || ||||||| |:| ||||||||||||||
Db 1377 RQDLYADTHFYDPTAREWQVITAKGERRQVLYTPWFVVSEDENDT 1421
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, AMJAD A. ABRAHAM can be reached at (571)270-7058. 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.
/SANTOSH SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/DAVID H KRUSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663