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: Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election to prosecute Group I, claims 1-15 in part, with traverse regarding restriction and election of SEQ ID NO: 3 (claim 12) and as species "polyether polyol" (claim 3) and "mixture of methylenediphenylene diisocyanate and polymethylenepolyphenylene polyisocyanate" (claim 4) without traverse for prosecution in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “… Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that the process of claim 1 is neither disclosed nor suggested by Steffens in view of Hirano and Bittner. As a result, the common technical feature of the present claims is a special technical feature over the cited art. For this reason, the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed”.
The traversal by the applicants’ is answered as follows: Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive to withdraw the restriction requirement. Elected Group I, claims 1-15 in part, and SEQ ID NO: 3 and species "polyether polyol" (claim 3) and "mixture of methylenediphenylene diisocyanate and polymethylenepolyphenylene polyisocyanate" (claim 4) is rendered obvious as the use of benzyl alcohol for depolymerization of polyurethane is known in the art, for details see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below and the polypeptides of the instant invention having urethanase activity SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 10 and 11 (claim 12, also see provided sequence alignment) and the use of urethanase enzymes for the enzymatic breakdown of polyurethanes is also well known in the art and hence, under PCT Rule 13.1 and PCT Rule 13.2 lack same or corresponding technical feature. Additionally, if the examiner finds that the national stage application lacks unity of invention under 37 CFR 1.475, the examiner may in an Office Action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect an invention to which the claims shall be restricted. Such requirement may be made before any action at the discretion of the examiner. Examiner continues to maintain that “the PCT does not provide for multiple products or methods within single application”, therefore, unity of invention is lacking with regard to multiple sequences and multiple species; see 37 CFR 1.475. 37 CFR 1.475 (d) also states: If multiple products, processes of manufacture or uses are claimed, the first invention of the category first mentioned in the claims of the application and the first recited invention of each other categories related thereto will be considered as the main invention in the claims, see PCT Article 17(3)(a) 1.47(c). 37 CFR 1.475(e) further states; the determination whether a group of invention is so linked as to form a single inventive concept shall be without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternative within a single claim.
Therefore, the technical features linking the inventions of all claims 1-15 does not constitute a special technical feature as defined by PCT Rule 13.2, as it does not define a contribution over the prior art. The results from a search of each of these inventions have different considerations with respect to the prior art, i.e., the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Burden lies not only in the search of sequence databases, U.S. patents, but also in the search for non-patent literature and foreign patents and in examination of the claim language and specification for compliance with the statutes concerning new matter, distinctness, double patenting, written description and enablement. Thus, a comphrensive search of all inventions in claims 1-15 would be a serious burden and contrary to applicants’ arguments, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application, elected Group I, claims 1-15 in part, SEQ ID NO: 3 (claim 12) and as species "polyether polyol" (claim 3); "mixture of methylenediphenylene diisocyanate and polymethylenepolyphenylene polyisocyanate" (claim 4) reading on the elected invention is now under consideration for examination, non-elected SEQ ID NOs: 4, 10 and 11 in claim 12; and the non-elected species in claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/065933 filed on 06/13/2022 and claims the priority date of EPO applications: EP21179237.9 filed on 06/14/2021 and EP22171964.4 filed on 05/06/2022; however, no English translation of said foreign priority applications have been provided. Therefore, the priority date for instant claims under consideration is deemed to be the filing date of 371 of PCT/EP2022/065933 filed on 06/13/2022.
Information disclosure statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement is considered and initialed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Written Description
Claims 11-12 depending from claims 8 and 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 depending from claims 8 and 1 as interpreted is directed to encompass any urethanase (genus of structures) including variants, mutants and homologs of unlimited structures (as in claim 11); any urethanase variant comprising any undefined sequence identity to the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 10 and 11 (genus of structures) and has the desired urethanase activity in the claimed method (as in claim 12).
In University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1938, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials”. As indicated in MPEP § 2163, 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, reduction to drawings, 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 that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. In addition, MPEP § 2163 states that 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.
In the instant case the scope of the instant claims encompass a genus of structures for polypeptides of interest with associated function in the claimed process, i.e., any urethanase (genus of structures) including variants, mutants and homologs of unlimited structures (as in claim 11); any urethanase variant comprising any undefined sequence identity to the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 10 and 11 (genus of structures) and has the desired urethanase activity in the claimed method (as in claim 12).
No information, beyond the characterization of specific parental wild-type urethanase comprising the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 3, 4, 10 and 11 and the claimed method of use (see pages 24-25 of specification), has been provided by the applicants’, which would indicate that they had possession of the claimed genus of structures for polypeptides of interest with associated function in the claimed process, i.e., any urethanase (genus of structures) including variants, mutants and homologs of unlimited structures (as in claim 11); any urethanase variant comprising any undefined sequence identity to the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 10 and 11 (genus of structures) and has the desired urethanase activity in the claimed method (as in claim 12).
The art also teaches, even highly structurally homologous polypeptides do not necessarily share the same function and conversely functionally similar molecules do not necessarily have similar structures. For example proteins having similar structure have different activities; Witkowski et al., (Biochemistry 38:11643-11650, 1999) teaches that one conservative amino acid substitution transforms a b-ketoacyl synthase into a malonyl decarboxylase and completely eliminates b-ketoacyl synthase activity. Similarly, Wishart et al., (J. Biol. Chem., 1995, Vol. 270(10): 26782-26785) teach that a single mutation converts a novel phosphotyrosine binding domain into a dual-specificity phosphatase.
Specifically regarding urethanases, the art teaches the following; structural changes correlate strongly with urethanase substrate specificity and enzyme kinetics. Applicants’ are directed to the following references: (i) Akutsu-Shigeno et al., (Appl Microbiol Biotechnol., 2006, Vol. 70: 422-429), disclose urethanase obtained from a specific source Rhodococcus sp., differs in biological properties, substrate specificity, and enzyme kinetics; see Abstract; Table 2, page 427; and entire document; and
(ii) Zhao et al., (Biol. Pharm. Bull., 1994, Vol. 17(6): 773-778), disclose urethanase obtained from a specific source Bacillus sp., differs in biological properties, substrate specificity, and enzyme kinetics; see Abstract; Table III, page 777; and entire document.
Hence, the recited genera of polypeptides in the claimed method are interpreted to have widely variable structures, since minor changes may result in changes affecting function and no additional information correlating structure with function has been provided.
Therefore, given the lack of description of representative species encompassed by the genus of polypeptides and modifications, the specification fails to sufficiently describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize that applicants’ were in possession of the claimed invention. Applicants’ are referred to the revised guidelines concerning compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, published in the Official Gazette and also available at www.uspto.gov.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steffens et al., (WO 2020/260387 A1 cited in IDS) and further in view of Ikenaga K., (US 7,897,651 B2), Bittner et al., (US 2021/0269834 A1; priority 12/21/2020), Zhou et al., (ChemSusChem., 2021, Vol. 14: 4176-4180, published online 11/26/2020) and Venkataramanarao et al., (Int. J. Peptide Res., 2007, Vol. 13(3): 393-397).
Regarding claims 1-10, 13 and 15, the disclosure of Steffens et al., (WO 2020/260387 A1 cited in IDS; and provided English Machine Translation) teach a method for recovering raw materials from polyurethane products, comprising the steps (A) providing a polyurethane product based on an isocyanate and a polyol; (B) reacting the polyurethane product with a (mono-or polyhydric) alcohol in the presence of a catalyst, wherein a first product mixture is obtained; (C) recovering polyols from the first product mixture, comprising (C.I) mixing the first product mixture obtained in step (B), specifically without prior separation of water optionally present in the first product mixture, with an organic solvent which is not completely miscible with the alcohol used in step (B), and phase separation into a first alcohol phase and a first solvent phase; (C.II) processing the first solvent phase to obtain polyols; and preferably (D) recovering amines (see Abstract; page 3 and entire document);
Steffens et al., teach said reference method involves a method for recovering raw materials from polyurethane products, comprising the steps of: (A) providing a polyurethane product based on a (multivalent) isocyanate (=the isocyanate component) and a polyol (=the Polyol component); (B) reacting the polyurethane product with a (mono-or polyhydric) alcohol the presence of a catalyst, wherein (with cleavage of urethane bonds) a first product mixture (comprising polyols, carbamates and the alcohol used, optionally water and in particular depending on the type of polyurethane product provided in step (A) is obtained optionally amines, in particular the amine corresponding to the isocyanate); (C) processing the first product mixture (=obtaining polyols (i.e. the polyols on which the polyurethane product is based, i.e. which make up its polyol component, and/or the polyols which are optionally formed from the original polyol component in step (B)) from the first product mixture), comprising: (C.I) mixing the first product mixture obtained in step (B) without prior separation optionally in the water present in the first product mixture with an organic solvent which is not completely miscible with the alcohol used in step (B), and phase separation into a first alcohol phase (comprising, in addition to the alcohol, carbamates and optionally amines, in particular the amine corresponding to the isocyanate) and a first solvent phase (comprising polyols); (C.II) processing the first solvent phase to obtain the polyols; and optionally (and preferably) (D) processing the first alcohol phase comprising a step of hydrolyzing the carbamates (=obtaining amines from the first alcohol phase, or, in certain embodiments described further below, from a second alcohol phase, into which the carbamates or amines contained in the first alcohol phase are transferred (see pages 4-5).
Regarding elected species in claim 3, Steffens et al., teach said reference polyols comprises all polyols known to a person skilled in the art in connection with polyurethane chemistry, such as in particular polyether polyols, polyester polyols, polyether ester polyols and polyether carbonate polyols. The expression " a polyol comprises, of course, also embodiments in which two or more different polyols were used in the production of the polyurethane product. This also applies within a polyol class. Thus, if reference is made hereinafter, for example, to "a polyether polyol" (or " a polyester polyol, etc.; see page 5).
Regarding elected species in claim 4, Steffens et al., teach said reference isocyanate selected from the group consisting of tolylene diisocyanate (TDI), the di-and polyisocyanates of the diphenylmethane series (MDI), 1,5-pentane diisocyanate (PDI), 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) and xylylene diisocyanate (XDI) and mixtures of two or more of the aforementioned isocyanates with respect to the isocyanate component (see page 7).
Regarding claims 6, 9-10 and 13, Steffens et al., teach said reference method includes the reaction of the polyurethane product with the (mono-or polyhydric) alcohol in the presence of the catalyst in step (B) is carried out at a temperature in the range from 160°C to 240°C (see page 7); catalyst in step (B) is selected from the group consisting of alkali metal hydroxides, alkaline earth metal hydroxides, alkali metal salts of carboxylic acids, alkaline earth metal salts of carboxylic acids, Lewis acids, organic amines, organometallic compounds and tin compounds and catalysts for step (B) are in particular alkali metal hydroxides, alkaline earth metal hydroxides, alkali metal salts of carboxylic acids (in particular acetates), alkaline earth metal salts of carboxylic acid (in particular acetates), Lewis acids (such as in particular dibutyltin dilaurate), organic amines (such as in particular diethanolamine), organometallic compounds (such as in particular titanium tetrabutanolate) and tin compounds (such as in particular zinc octoate). Step (B) is preferably carried out at temperatures in the range from 160°C to 270°C under normal atmospheric pressure in the presence of 0.1% by mass to 5% by mass of catalyst, based on the mass of the polyurethane product added (see page 8 and claim 13).
Regarding claim 7, Steffens et al., teach said reference method includes Quantitative ratios in the range from 1: 2 to 4: 1, based on the ratio of the organic solvent to the first product mixture, are preferred (see page 9) and a mass ratio of 1: 1 (steps (A) and (B) of the process according to the invention (see page 11).
However, Steffens et al., do not teach wherein said alcohol is a monofunctional araliphatic alcohol/benzyl alcohol (as in claims 1 and 5); wherein the hydrolysis catalyst comprises a urethanase (as in claims 11-12); and (D.III) hydrogenolysis of the carbamate with hydrogen to form an amine corresponding to an isocyanate of the isocyanate component in the presence of a hydrogenolysis catalyst and hydrogenolysis is performed in the presence of a solvent at a temperature in the range from 20°C to 100°C (as in claims 8 and 14).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, use of araliphatic alcohol/benzyl alcohol is well known and established in the art for depolymerization of polyurethane:
Ikenaga K., (US 7,897,651 B2), provide teaching, suggestion and motivation for recovering monomers from polymers, such as polyurethanes (see Abstract; col. 4, lines 38-51; col. 5, lines 1-30; and entire document), said reference method is utilized for rapidly depolymerizing a polyester and an unsaturated polyester by irradiating the polyester with microwaves in the presence of benzyl alcohol (see col. 4, lines 31-37; col. 5, lines 1-6; col. 8, lines 44-46; Example 3-10, col. 24, lines 10-30; TABLE 4, col. 25); and suggest the advantages of using benzyl alcohol (see col. 8, lines 51-62) “benzyl alcohol has a somewhat low boiling point, and therefore, in order to completely depolymerize an unsaturated polyester, a reaction time of about 2 hours is required. Benzyl alcohol, however, has advantages such that it has a suitable degree of microwave absorption for use in the depolymerization reaction of an unsaturated polyester, the reaction product obtained by the depolymerization reaction can be easily separated and recovered because it has excellent solubility in an organic solvent such as chloroform, and benzyl alcohol is excellent in workability because of low odor. Therefore, benzyl alcohol is a particularly preferred monohydric alcohol in the fifth embodiment of the invention” and suggest the use of temperature in the range of 1500C-3000C (see col. 2, lines 43-46); and at 1800C (see col. 3, lines 2-10)
Regarding claims 11-12, wherein the hydrolysis catalyst comprises a urethanase, Bittner et al., (US 2021/0269834 A1; priority 01/18/2019), disclose the use of urethanases for the enzymatic breakdown of polyurethanes and to an enzymatic process for the complete breakdown of polyurethanes into defined monomers (see Abstract; ¶ [0001-0002] and entire document); said reference urethanase having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignment).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, (D.III) hydrogenolysis of the carbamate with hydrogen to form an amine corresponding to an isocyanate of the isocyanate component in the presence of a hydrogenolysis catalyst and hydrogenolysis is performed in the presence of a solvent at a temperature in the range from 20°C to 100°C the following references provide teaching, suggestion and motivation for hydrogenolysis of the carbamate with hydrogen to form an amine corresponding to an isocyanate of the isocyanate component in the presence of a hydrogenolysis catalyst:
Zhou et al., (ChemSusChem., 2021, Vol. 14: 4176-4180, published online 11/26/2020) teach methods for depolymerization of polyurethane materials through hydrogenation in the presence of hydrogenation catalysts employed in hydrogenation (see Abstract; col. 2, ¶ 2, page 4178; Scheme 2, page 4179);
Venkataramanarao et al., (Int. J. Peptide Res., 2007, Vol. 13(3): 393-397) teach method for alcoholysis of isocyanates and the use of benzyl alcohol and at temperatures ranging from 250C-1100C for producing carbamate (see Table 1, page 394; Results and Discussion, page 396).
As such, disclosure of strategy and methods including structural and functional elements for polyurethane processing and use of benzyl alcohol as a particularly preferred monohydric alcohol having desirable properties such as low boiling point, and the reaction product obtained by the depolymerization reaction can be easily separated and recovered because it has excellent solubility in an organic solvent for generating different monomer constituents of interest such as polyols, isocyanates and carbamates in the claimed process, such as that of reference of Ikenaga K., teaching the advantages of said modifications, clearly suggests to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Steffens et al., and incorporate the structural and functional elements Ikenaga K., and adopt the hydrogenation and alcoholysis of polyurethanes and isocyanates reaction conditions in the claimed process, as provided in the teachings of Zhou et al., and Venkataramanarao et al., and the combined references Ikenaga K., Zhou et al., and Venkataramanarao et al., also provide the structural and functional elements of the instant invention are well known in the art (for details see the rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed process, as suggested by Ikenaga K., Zhou et al., and Venkataramanarao et al., and to modify the teachings of Steffens et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to make such change depending on the experimental need i.e., a process for cleavage of polyurethane products comprising-the steps of: (A) providing a polyurethane product based on an isocyanate component and a polyol component; (B) reacting the polyurethane product with a monofunctional araliphatic alcohol/benzyl alcohol in the presence of an alcoholysis catalyst to obtain a product mixture containing a liquid polyol phase and a solid carbamate of an isocyanate of the isocyanate component and of the monofunctional araliphatic alcohol; and (C) separating the carbamate from the product mixture, leaving behind the liquid polyol phase, because a skilled artisan would realize such a modification would be useful to efficiently produce and for generating different monomer constituents of interest such as polyols, isocyanates and carbamates from polyurethanes in the claimed process. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at adding the steps i.e., a process for cleavage of polyurethane products comprising-the steps of: (A) providing a polyurethane product based on an isocyanate component and a polyol component; (B) reacting the polyurethane product with a monofunctional araliphatic alcohol/benzyl alcohol in the presence of an alcoholysis catalyst to obtain a product mixture containing a liquid polyol phase and a solid carbamate of an isocyanate of the isocyanate component and of the monofunctional araliphatic alcohol; and (C) separating the carbamate from the product mixture, leaving behind the liquid polyol phase in the claimed process, as suggested in the teachings of Steffens et al., Ikenaga K., Bittner et al., Zhou et al., and Venkataramanarao et al., and are well known in the art. Therefore, the invention as a whole lack an inventive step over the prior art. The expectation of success is high, because the combined teachings of Steffens et al., Ikenaga K., Bittner et al., Zhou et al., and Venkataramanarao et al., also provide the structural and functional elements of the instant invention (Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation).
Regarding specific choice of catalyst, temperature and configuration of method steps are also provided/suggested in the combination of references, and examiner also takes the position the following position; optimization of known variables, and the examiner finds support in: MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]: A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation Generally, differences in catalyst, temperature and configuration of method steps will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation". As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions or two methods each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition or third method to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Given this extensive teaching in prior art (Steffens et al., Ikenaga K., Bittner et al., Zhou et al., and Venkataramanarao et al.,) the claimed process, as taught by the instant invention and as claimed in claims 1-15 is not of innovation but of ordinary skill in the art and the expectation of success is extremely high i.e., “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1397”.
Hence, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steffens et al., (WO 2020/260387 A1 cited in IDS) and further in view of Ikenaga K., (US 7,897,651 B2), Bittner et al., (US 2021/0269834 A1; priority 12/21/2020), Zhou et al., (ChemSusChem., 2021, Vol. 14: 4176-4180, published online 11/26/2020) and Venkataramanarao et al., (Int. J. Peptide Res., 2007, Vol. 13(3): 393-397).
Allowable Subject Matter/Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652