Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/562,666

METHOD FOR CRYSTALLIZATION OF AROMATIC AMINO ACIDS, ENABLING SUSTAINABLE CYCLE OF AMMONIA

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
CHAO, ALLEN
Art Unit
1622
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Cj Cheiljedang Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-60.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
18
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in reply to the application filed on 20 November 2023. Claim 9 is amended. Currently, claims 1-10 are pending. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Method for crystallization of branched chain amino acids with a sustainable cycle of ammonia, KR 2010152229, 2019) in view of Qingyang et al. (L-Tyrosine genetically engineer bacterium and L-tyrosine production method thereof, CN109266592, 2019). Kim discloses a method that produces a branched chain amino acid crystal comprising the steps of: (a) mixing a reaction solution containing a branched chain amino acid crystal with ammonia to a pH of 9-12, as compared to claim 5, obtaining a solution in which the branched chain amino acid crystal is dissolved (b) the step of obtaining the concentrate, which is 1 to 2 times the concentration of the non-concentrated solution, as compared to claim 6, which crystallizes and includes the branched chain amino acid, as compared to claim 9, (c) the step of obtaining the mixing gas which includes the steam which becomes in the crystallization process and ammonia and where the pH of the solution is 5.5 to less than 8, as compared to claim 7, (d) the step of reusing the ammonia originating from the mixed gas, as compared to claim 8, performing steps (b) and (c) simultaneously or sequentially, as compared to claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness necessarily exists when the prior art range overlaps or touches a claimed range, such as in the instant rejection. MPEP §2144.05 Kim does not, however, disclose the application of this method to aromatic amino acids. Qingyang rectifies this deficiency by teaching about an invention to produce L-tyrosine, as compared to claim 2, an essential aromatic amino acid and a ketogenic and glucogenic amino acid that appears as white crystalline powder, with applications in pharmaceuticals as a raw material, food as a nutritional supplement, and live-stock feed. This invention utilizes a fermentation broth of genetically engineered bacterium where the L-tyrosine synthesis related gene in Escherichia coli is modified at the genetic level, including the blocking of the phenylalanine synthesis pathway, eliminating the feedback inhibition and transcriptional negative regulation of key enzymes, inducing the RNA polymerase derived from the T7 phage by introduction of a xylose promoter, and high-efficiency expression of another key enzyme gene in combination with the T7 start subsystem, as compared to claims 3 and 4. By utilizing this system, Qingyang describes obtaining 37.8 g/L of bacteria from 5 L of fermentation broth capable of producing L-tyrosine in a scalable, controllable, and economic manner. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to apply the crystallization method of Kim to the invention of Qingyang, which produces L-tyrosine through a genetically engineered bacterium of E-Coli as a means to purify the resulting crude material to obtain crystalline L-tyrosine, as compared to claims 9 and 10. Summary Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen Chao whose telephone number is (571)272-7001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0700-1300. 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, James H Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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. /ALLEN CHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1622 /JAMES H ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month