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. Applicants’ amendment to the claims filed on 7/3/2024 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 18-19 are canceled. Priority Acknowledgement is made of this national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/068272 filed on 7/1/2022, which claims foreign priority to the European Patent Application No. EP21183447.8, filed on 7/2/2021 and European Patent Application No. EP22161107.2, filed on 3/9/2022. The certified cop ies ha ve been filed in the instant application on 12/14/2023 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2024 and 1/16/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The Drawings filed on 12/14/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner. Restriction/Election Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 3/3/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants contend it would not be unduly burdensome to simultaneously examine all pending claims in the application. This argument is found to be not persuasive . Applicant is reminded that the evidence of burden of search does not apply to examination of PCT applications upon entering the national stage. MPEP § 1893.03(d) states "the principles of unity of invention are used to determine the types of claimed subject matter and the combinations of claims to different categories of invention that are permitted to be included in a single international or national stage patent application." See MPEP § 1850 for a detailed discussion of Unity of Invention. The basic principle is that an application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, that applicant would have a right to include in a single application only those inventions which are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept." A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding special technical feature. The expression special technical features is defined as meaning those technical features that define the contribution which each claimed invention, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Applicant is reminded that t he inventions of Groups I, II, III lack unity because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme Δ 12 (fatty acyl-CoA) t his technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Serra et al (2007, PNAS, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/8/2026 ). Serra teaches the cloning of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase from Spodoptera littoralis into yeast (fig. 5). As such, the shared , same or corresponding technical feature among Groups I, II and III are not a contribution of the prior art. Claims 11-17 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. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined on the merits. Claims 18-19 are canceled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Written Description 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 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163.II.A.2.(a). i ) states, “Whether the specification shows that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention”. For claims drawn to a genus, MPEP § 2163 states 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 the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Claim 1 is drawn to a yeast cell capable of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12, wherein said yeast cell expresses a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase , said desaturase being capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, preferably a desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bond(s), wherein n and n' are integers, wherein 0 < n < 3 and wherein 1 4. The structure of a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase is a large number of sequences as Applicant has not adequately and clearly claimed from where said a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase is derived due to claim language of ‘capable of.’ Claim 2 is drawn to the yeast cell according to claim 1, wherein said heterologous Δ12 desaturase is native to Cadra , Ephestia , Plodia, Maliarpha , Fumibotys or Amorbia , such as to Cadra cautella , Ephestia elutella , Ephestia kuehniella , Plodia interpunctella , Maliarpha separatella , or Amorbia cuneana , optionally wherein said heterologous A12 desaturase is a Plodia desaturase, such as a Plodia interpunctella desaturase or a Cadra desaturase, such as a Cadra cautella desaturase, or an Ephestia desaturase, such as an Ephestia elutella or an Ephestia kuehniella desaturase, further optionally wherein said heterologous Δ 12 desaturase is a Pidl2 desaturase as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 or an Eku_12 desaturase as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 85, or a functional homologue thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto . The structure of a homologue with at least 70% similarity or identity to a heterologous Δ12 desaturase are a large number of sequences. Claim 7 is drawn to t he yeast cell according to claim 6, wherein said further heterologous desaturase is a Drosophila or a Choristoneura desaturase , optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is Desat59 (SEQ ID NO: 8), Desat6l (SEQ ID NO: 4), Desat56 (SEQ ID NO: 57), Desat60 (SEQ ID NO: 59), Desat74 (SEQ ID NO: 61) or Desat24 (SEQ ID NO: 6) or functional variants thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto. Claim 8 is drawn to t he yeast cell according to claim 1 wherein the yeast cell is capable of producing (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol, said yeast cell further expressing at least one alcohol-forming fatty acyl-CoA reductase (FAR) capable of converting at least a part of (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoyl -CoA into (Z9, E12)- tetradecadien-1-ol; optionally wherein the FAR is native to Agrotis , Amyelois , Bicyclus , Bombus, Chilo , Cydia,Helicoverpa , Heliothis , Lobesia , Ostrinia , Plodia, Plutella , Spodoptera, Trichoplusia,Tyta , or Yponomeuta , such as Agrotis ipsilon , Agrotis segetum , Amyelois transitella , Bicyclus anynana , Bombus lapidarius , Chilo Suppressalis , Cydia pomonella , Helicoverpa armigera , Helicoverpa assulta , Heliothis subflexa , Heliothis virescens, Lobesia botrana , Ostrinia furnacalis , Ostrinia nubilalis , Ostrinia zag, Ostrinia zea , Plodia interpunctella,Plutella xylostella , Spodoptera exigua , Spodoptera frugiperda , Spodoptera littoralis, Spodoptera litura , Trichoplusia ni , Tyta alba or Yponomeuta rorellus , especially Spodoptera exigua , Helicoverpa armigera , Spodoptera litura or Plodia interpunctella ; further optionally wherein the FAR is FAR1 (SEQ ID NO: 20), FAR16 (SEQ ID NO: 22), FAR17 (SEQ ID NO: 24), FAR19 (SEQ ID NO: 26), FAR28 (SEQ ID NO: 28), FAR32 (SEQ ID NO: 30), FAR44 (SEQID NO: 63), FAR48 (SEQ ID NO: 65), FAR49 (SEQ ID NO: 67); FAR38 (SEQ ID NO:32), FAR4 (SEQ ID NO: 69), FAR6 (SEQ ID NO: 71), FAR8 (SEQ ID NO: 73), FAR12 (SEQ ID NO: 75), FAR11 (SEQ ID NO: 77) or FAR5 (SEQ ID NO: 79), or functional variants thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto . In this case, the specification discloses the following representative heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and homologues with at least 70% similarity or identity to a heterologous Δ12 desaturase as encompassed by the claim (i.e. SEQ ID: 2, 4, 6, 8, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85). Other than the above disclosed species, there is no prior-art or disclosed teaching as to the large number of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and homologues of a heterologous Δ12 desaturase with at least 70% sequence identity. The breadth of the claims encompass any heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and homologue with at least 70% sequence identity to a heterologous Δ12 desaturase from any species other than a yeast cell, which is a large number of sequences. An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the disclosure fails to teach which heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and homologue of heterologous Δ12 desaturase with 70% identity out of the numerous possibilities for introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would not accept the disclosure of SEQ ID: 2, 4, 6, 8, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 as being representative of all heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and all heterologous Δ12 desaturase and homologues thereof with 70% sequence identity as encompassed by the claims. As such, the specification, taken with the pre-existing knowledge in the art of heterologous Δ12 desaturase, fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Scope of Enablement Claims 1- 10 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 heterologous Δ12 desaturase enzymes such as: SEQ ID: 2, 4, 6, 8, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 that effectuate the products of skill in the art, it does not reasonably provide enablement for all heterologous Δ12 desaturase and functional homologue thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto as encompassed by the claims. 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. The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue.” In re Angstadt , 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976). Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands (858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) as follows: (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. See MPEP § 2164.01(a). The Factors considered to be most relevant to the instant rejection are addressed in detail below. (A)The breadth of the claims: Claim 1 is drawn to a yeast cell capable of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12, wherein said yeast cell expresses a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase , said desaturase being capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, preferably a desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bond(s), wherein n and n' are integers, wherein 0 < n < 3 and wherein 1 4. The structure of a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase is a large number of sequences as Applicant has not adequately claimed and defined from where said a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase is derived. Claim 2 is drawn to the yeast cell according to claim 1, wherein said heterologous Δ12 desaturase is native to Cadra , Ephestia , Plodia, Maliarpha , Fumibotys or Amorbia , such as to Cadra cautella , Ephestia elutella , Ephestia kuehniella , Plodia interpunctella , Maliarpha separatella , or Amorbia cuneana , optionally wherein said heterologous A12 desaturase is a Plodia desaturase, such as a Plodia interpunctella desaturase or a Cadra desaturase, such as a Cadra cautella desaturase, or an Ephestia desaturase, such as an Ephestia elutella or an Ephestia kuehniella desaturase, further optionally wherein said heterologous Δ 12 desaturase is a Pidl2 desaturase as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 or an Eku_12 desaturase as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 85, or a functional homologue thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto . The structure of a homologue with at least 70% similarity or identity to a heterologous Δ12 desaturase are a large number of sequences. Claim 7 is drawn to t he yeast cell according to claim 6, wherein said further heterologous desaturase is a Drosophila or a Choristoneura desaturase , optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is Desat59 (SEQ ID NO: 8), Desat6l (SEQ ID NO: 4), Desat56 (SEQ ID NO: 57), Desat60 (SEQ ID NO: 59), Desat74 (SEQ ID NO: 61) or Desat24 (SEQ ID NO: 6) or functional variants thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto. Claim 8 is drawn to t he yeast cell according to claim 1. wherein the yeast cell is capable of producing (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol, said yeast cell further expressing at least one alcohol-forming fatty acyl-CoA reductase (FAR) capable of converting at least a part of (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoyl -CoA into (Z9, E12)- tetradecadien-1-ol; optionally wherein the FAR is native to Agrotis , Amyelois , Bicyclus , Bombus, Chilo , Cydia,Helicoverpa , Heliothis , Lobesia , Ostrinia , Plodia, Plutella , Spodoptera, Trichoplusia,Tyta , or Yponomeuta , such as Agrotis ipsilon , Agrotis segetum , Amyelois transitella , Bicyclus anynana , Bombus lapidarius , Chilo Suppressalis , Cydia pomonella , Helicoverpa armigera , Helicoverpa assulta , Heliothis subflexa , Heliothis virescens, Lobesia botrana , Ostrinia furnacalis , Ostrinia nubilalis , Ostrinia zag, Ostrinia zea , Plodia interpunctella,Plutella xylostella , Spodoptera exigua , Spodoptera frugiperda , Spodoptera littoralis, Spodoptera litura , Trichoplusia ni , Tyta alba or Yponomeuta rorellus , especially Spodoptera exigua , Helicoverpa armigera , Spodoptera litura or Plodia interpunctella ; further optionally wherein the FAR is FAR1 (SEQ ID NO: 20), FAR16 (SEQ ID NO: 22), FAR17 (SEQ ID NO: 24), FAR19 (SEQ ID NO: 26), FAR28 (SEQ ID NO: 28), FAR32 (SEQ ID NO: 30), FAR44 (SEQID NO: 63), FAR48 (SEQ ID NO: 65), FAR49 (SEQ ID NO: 67); FAR38 (SEQ ID NO:32), FAR4 (SEQ ID NO: 69), FAR6 (SEQ ID NO: 71), FAR8 (SEQ ID NO: 73), FAR12 (SEQ ID NO: 75), FAR11 (SEQ ID NO: 77) or FAR5 (SEQ ID NO: 79), or functional variants thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto . B) The nature of the invention; C)The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; and (E) The level of predictability in the art: As noted above, the scope of the claimed heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase are a large number of sequences. The structure of the claimed heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA are a large number of sequences. In this regard, it is noted that the reference of Matsuda et al (2013, patient-oriented and epideminological research, Examiner cited) discloses Δ12 fatty desaturase is found in protozoan, plant and cyanobacterial groups (page 1216, column 2, para 2). Serra et al (2007, PNAS, Examiner cited) discloses Δ12 fatty desaturase is present in a number of different species of insects (abstract). It is well-known in the prior art that the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide determines the polypeptide’s functional properties. The positions within a protein's sequence where modifications can be made with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a polypeptide having the desired activity/utility are limited in any protein and the result of such modifications is highly unpredictable. In addition, one skilled in the art would expect any tolerance to modification for a given protein to diminish with each further and additional modification, e.g., multiple substitutions. The reference of Singh et al. (Current Protein and Peptide Science, 2017; examiner cited) reviews various protein engineering methods and discloses that despite the availability of an ever-growing database of protein structures and highly sophisticated computational algorithms, protein engineering is still limited by the incomplete understanding of protein functions, folding, flexibility, and conformational changes [see p. 7, column 1, top]. The reference of Zhang et al. (Structure, 2018; examiner cited) discloses that a mutation of a residue that was predicted to be benign caused significant structural changes and unexpected effects on the function of a polypeptide [p. 1475, column 1]. It is well-known in the art that even a single amino acid alteration can alter the folding of a polypeptide. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.08.II.A.4.(c), which states, “[ i ]n the area of biotechnology, an exemplified species may differ from a claimed species by a conservative substitution (“the replacement in a protein of one amino acid by another, chemically similar, amino acid... [which] is generally expected to lead to either no change or only a small change in the properties of the protein.” Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 97 (John Wiley & Sons, 2d ed. 1989)). The effect of a conservative substitution on protein function depends on the nature of the substitution and its location in the chain. Although at some locations a conservative substitution may be benign, in some proteins only one amino acid is allowed at a given position. For example, the gain or loss of even one methyl group can destabilize the structure if close packing is required in the interior of domains. James Darnell et al., Molecular Cell Biology 51 (2d ed. 1990).” (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor and (G) The existence of working examples: The specification discloses the following working examples of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and homologues of heterologous Δ12 desaturase with at least 70% similarity or identity as encompassed by the claim (i.e. SEQ ID: 2, 4, 6, 8, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 ). Other than the above disclosed species, there is no prior-art or disclosed teaching as to the large number of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and homologues of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase with at least 70% sequence identity. Other than these working examples, the specification fails to disclose any other working examples of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase and heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase homologues with at least 70% sequence identity that are capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA. In view of the overly broad scope of the claims, the lack of guidance and working examples provided in the specification, the high level of unpredictability, and the state of the prior art, undue experimentation would be necessary for a skilled artisan to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention. Applicants have not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement (In re Fisher, 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA 1970)). Without sufficient guidance, determination of having the desired biological characteristics is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988). 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 ( claims 2-10 dependent thereof) , the term " preferably " renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear the limitation of the claim and/or if the claim encompasses additional elements. Regarding claim s 2 , 8 , the phrase " such as " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or just mere examples, thus rendering the scope undiscernible. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim s 4- 5 , the term " i . e . " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or just mere examples, thus rendering the scope undiscernible. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is a naturally occurring microorganism. Step 1 : Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the four statutory categories. Step 2, Prong One : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim is directed to a natural phenomenon (product of nature). Said natural phenomenon is an enzyme, Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase . Claims 1-10 are directed towards a yeast cell capable of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12, wherein said yeast cell expresses a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase , said desaturase being capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, preferably a desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bond(s), wherein n and n' are integers, and wherein 0 < n < 3 and wherein 1 4. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, said enzyme ( Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase ) is genetically unmodified and naturally occurrin g. As such, t he claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, the claim recites a "product of nature," which is a judicial exception. Step 2, Prong Two : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Claim 1 includes an additional element of Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase being heterologously expressed in a yeast cell with the recitation ‘heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase.’ However, said enzyme is not different from the natural enzyme because in claim 2 of the instant application, Applicant recites the “heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase ” is native to several other yeasts. Furthermore, in claim 2 of the instant application, Applicant makes it clear that the instant application is claiming the enzyme with exactly the same amino acid (SEQ ID NO: 2 or 85) and only in the alternative “a functional homologue with 70% sequence identity.” Therefore, the additional elements are directed to an enzyme naturally occurring in yeast. Said enzyme being ‘heterologous’ is not sufficient to integrate into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g)). Step 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The judicial exception is recited without additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. All of the signified additional elements to the judicial exception are considered to be native to the yeast on which the judicial exception is to be performed as noted in Step 2A, Prong 2, and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception that is claimed. As the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are not integrated into practical application, and no elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as recited, the claims were found not to be drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 7 , the recitation of the phrase ‘ 70% similarity or identity ’ is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of the phrase is intended to encompass structurally. It is unclear what the phrase ‘ 70% similarity or identity ’ is intended to encompass. It is unclear from the claims and specification what the ‘optional substance’ is referring to structurally and functionally. Accordingly, the metes and bounds upon which patent protection is sought cannot be ascertained from this phrase . It is noted that Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending the phrase to recite “having at least 70% amino acid sequence identity” such that one of skill in the art would know what is it they are comparing. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . Claims 1- 2, 4- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Serra et al (2007, PNAS, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/8/2026 ) as evidenced by PubChem (2026, (Z)-hexadec-11-enoic acid | C16H30O2 | CID 5312414 - PubChem , Examiner cited) {herein PubChem} and Schneiter et al (2000, Journal of Bacteriology, Examiner coted) {herein Schneiter } . See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections. Claims 1 -2, 4 -10 are drawn to a yeast cell capable of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12, wherein said yeast cell expresses a heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase, said desaturase being capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, preferably a desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bond(s), wherein n and n' are integers, and wherein 0 < n < 3 and wherein 1 4. With respect to claims 1-2 , Serra teaches the cloning of heterologous Δ12 fatty acyl-CoA desaturase from Spodoptera littoralis into yeast (fig. 5). The recitation of ‘ capable of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12 ’ and ‘ capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA ’ (instant application claim 1) is a latent property . Said recitation merely recites a correlation of the yeast cell and its ability to produce fatty acyl-CoA and introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-C, not that the yeast cell need to be in the active process of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s) and introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA. MPEP 2145.II recites “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitations of ‘ capable of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12’ and ‘ capable of introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA’ are not required to be in the process of ‘producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12’ and ‘introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA’ only need to be capable of producing said product. As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said invention is capable of ‘ producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n' double bond(s), wherein at least one of said double bond(s) is at position 12 ’ and ‘ introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA ’ since Sierra encompasses the limitations of the claim. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitation ‘ preferably a desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bond(s), wherein n and n' are integers, and wherein 0 < n < 3 and wherein 14 ’ is not a required limitation of the claim due to the recitation ‘ preferably, ’ of which Examiner is interpreting as being the same as ‘ optionally .’ Furthermore, regarding the recitation ‘ optionally wherein said heterologous Δ12 desaturase is a Pidl2 desaturase as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 or an Eku_12 desaturase as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 85, or a functional homologue thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto ’ in claim 2 of the instant application, it is the Examiner’s position that said limitations are not required limitations due to the recitation ‘ optionally .’ Serra further teaches It would be interesting to clone and determine whether moth Δ12 desaturases, such as those involved in the biosynthesis of the Cadra cautella sex pheromone (page 16448, column 1, para 5). With respect to claim s 4 -7 , Serra teaches a desaturated fatty acyl-CoA, (Z)-11-hexadecenoic acid, that is comprised of at least 14 carbons (Fig. 7) derived from Choristoneur a (Fig. 3) . Evidentiary reference of PubChem is cited to demonstrate that (Z)-11-hexadecenoic acid has a double bond at carbon 11 (page 1). Furthermore, said (Z)-11-hexadecenoic acid is comprised of 16 carbons (PubChem, page 1). In addition, Serra teaches 11-hexadecynoic acids , of which is the Examiner’s position to be ‘a further heterologous desaturase ’ as recited in the instant application claim 6. Regarding the recitation, ‘ optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is capable of introducing a double bond at any position which is not position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bonds; optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is capable of introducing a double bond at least in position 9; further o ptionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is aΔ9 desaturase or a Δ11 desaturase ’ in claim 6 of the instant application, said properties are latent properties . Said recitation merely recites a correlation of the yeast cell and its ability to produce fatty acyl-CoA and introducing a double bond at position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-C, not that the yeast cell need to be in the active process of producing a desaturated fatty acyl-coenzyme A (fatty acyl-CoA) having n double bond(s) and introducing a double bond at position 9 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA. MPEP 2145.II recites “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitations of, ‘optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is capable of introducing a double bond at any position which is not position 12 in a saturated or desaturated fatty acyl-CoA having a carbon chain length of at least 13 and having n double bonds ; optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is capable of introducing a double bond at least in position 9; further optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is a Δ9 desaturase or a Δ11 desaturase ’ only need to be capable of producing said product since Sierra encompasses the limitations of the claim. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitation ‘ optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is capable of introducing a double bond at least in position 9; further optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is a Δ9 desaturase or a Δ11 desaturase ’ within the instant application claim 6 and ‘ optionally wherein said further heterologous desaturase is Desat59 (SEQ ID NO: 8), Desat6l (SEQ ID NO: 4), Desat56 (SEQ ID NO: 57), Desat60 (SEQ ID NO: 59), Desat74 (SEQ ID NO: 61) or Desat24 (SEQ ID NO: 6) or functional variants thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto ’ within the instant application claim 7 are not required limitations due to the recitation ‘ optionally .’ With respect to claim 8, the recitation ‘ capable of producing (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol, said yeast cell further expressing at least one alcohol-forming fatty acyl-CoA reductase (FAR) capable of converting at least a part of (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoyl -CoA into (Z9, E12)- tetradecadien-1-ol’ (instant application claim 8 ) are latent propert ies . Said recitation merely recites a correlation of the yeast cell and its ability to produce (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol and express at least one alcohol-forming fatty acyl-CoA reductase (FAR) . MPEP 2145.II recites “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitations of ‘ capable of producing (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol, said yeast cell further expressing at least one alcohol-forming fatty acyl-CoA reductase (FAR) capable of converting at least a part of (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoyl -CoA into (Z9, E12)- tetradecadien-1-ol ’ only need to be capable of producing said product. As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said invention is capable of ‘ producing (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol, said yeast cell further expressing at least one alcohol-forming fatty acyl-CoA reductase (FAR) and capable of converting at least a part of (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoyl -CoA into (Z9, E12)- tetradecadien-1-ol ’ since Sierra encompasses the limitations of the claim. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitation ‘ optionally wherein the FAR is native to Agrotis , Amyelois , Bicyclus , Bombus, Chilo , Cydia,Helicoverpa , Heliothis , Lobesia , Ostrinia , Plodia, Plutella , Spodoptera, Trichoplusia,Tyta , or Yponomeuta , such as Agrotis ipsilon , Agrotis segetum, Amyelois transitella , Bicyclus anynana , Bombus lapidarius , Chilo Suppressalis , Cydia pomonella , Helicoverpa armigera , Helicoverpa assulta , Heliothis subflexa , Heliothis virescens, Lobesia botrana , Ostrinia furnacalis , Ostrinia nubilalis , Ostrinia zag, Ostrinia zea , Plodia interpunctella,Plutella xylostella , Spodoptera exigua , Spodoptera frugiperda , Spodoptera littoralis, Spodoptera litura , Trichoplusia ni , Tyta alba or Yponomeuta rorellus , especially Spodoptera exigua , Helicoverpa armigera , Spodoptera litura or Plodia interpunctella ; further optionally wherein the FAR is FAR1 (SEQ ID NO: 20), FAR16 (SEQ ID NO: 22), FAR17 (SEQ ID NO: 24), FAR19 (SEQ ID NO: 26), FAR28 (SEQ ID NO: 28), FAR32 (SEQ ID NO: 30), FAR44 (SEQID NO: 63), FAR48 (SEQ ID NO: 65), FAR49 (SEQ ID NO: 67); FAR38 (SEQ ID NO:32), FAR4 (SEQ ID NO: 69), FAR6 (SEQ ID NO: 71), FAR8 (SEQ ID NO: 73), FAR12 (SEQ ID NO: 75), FAR11 (SEQ ID NO: 77) or FAR5 (SEQ ID NO: 79), or functional variants thereof having at least 70% similarity or identity thereto ’ are not required limitations of the claims due to the recitation ‘ optionally .’ With respect to claim 9, Serra teaches the transformation of a yeast cell to produce the YMS1 yeast strain (page 16449, column 2, para 1). Evidentiary reference of Schneiter is cited to demonstrate that said yeast strain is Saccharomyces cerevisiae (abstract) . With respect to claim 10 , the recitation ‘ capable of producing: i ) (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 1 mg/L; ii) an E12-fatty acid and/or (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 20 mg/L; and/or iii) an E12-fatty alcohol and/or (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol with a titer of at least 0.005 mg/L ’ in the instant application claim 10 are latent propert ies . . Said recitation merely recites a correlation of the yeast cell and its ability to produce i ) (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 1 mg/L; ii) an E12-fatty acid and/or (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 20 mg/L; and/or iii) an E12-fatty alcohol and/or (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol with a titer of at least 0.005 mg/L . MPEP 2145.II recites “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the recitations of ‘ capable of producing i ) (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 1 mg/L; ii) an E12-fatty acid and/or (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 20 mg/L; and/or iii) an E12-fatty alcohol and/or (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol with a titer of at least 0.005 mg/L ’ only need to be capable of producing said product. As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said invention is capable of producing ‘ i ) (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 1 mg/L; ii) an E12-fatty acid and/or (Z9, E12)- tetradecadienoic acid with a titer of at least 20 mg/L; and/or iii) an E12-fatty alcohol and/or (Z9, E12)-tetradecadien-1-ol with a titer of at least 0.005 mg/L ’ since Sierra encompasses the limitations of the claim. For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Serra anticipate claims 1 -2, 4 -10. Conclusion Status of Claims : Claims 11-17 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. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined on the merits. Claims 18-19 are canceled. Claims 1-10 are rejected. No claims are in condition for allowance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0360 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT mf 7:30a - 4:30p . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Manjunath Rao can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1656 /MANJUNATH N RAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656