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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and the B/00227 strain in the reply filed on 1-26-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the art cited in the written option does not disclose or suggest a strain that comprises a 16S nucleotide sequence that has at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 over the entire length of said sequence and that the species election is improper since there is no search/examination burden to examine each of the bacterial species. This is not found persuasive because as set forth by Applicant the FLM-2 sequence has 94.88% identity to SEQ ID NO:2 (which rounds up to 95%). Moreover, each bacterial species have differing biological characteristics and hence their examination and searches would not be coextensive in scope and hence constitute a serious burden on the Office.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 4-8 and 14-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-3 and 9-13 are currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12-18-2023 has been considered. An initialed copy is attached hereto.
It should be noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 9-13 are objected to for reciting claim language drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural product without significantly more.
Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/ relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP2106.04(b)).
“The law of nature and natural phenomenon exceptions reflect the Supreme Court's view that the basic tools of scientific and technological work are not patentable, because the "manifestations of laws of nature" are "part of the storehouse of knowledge," "free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948). Thus, "a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter" under Section 101. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980). "Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity." Id. Nor can one patent "a novel and useful mathematical formula," Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978); electromagnetism or steam power, O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113-114 (1853); or "[t]he qualities of ... bacteria, ... the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals," Funk, 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281; see also Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1853).”
Products of nature are analyzed under 35 USC 101 through the “markedly different characteristics analysis”. MPEP 2106.04(c) as a part of step 2A prong one of the analyses.
“If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible (Step 2A: NO) at Pathway B unless the claim recites another exception (such as a law of nature or abstract idea, or a different natural phenomenon). For claims where the entire claim is a single nature-based product (e.g., a claim to a bacterial strain with a 16S with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 – e.g. Kitasatospora-like strain B/00227), once a markedly different characteristic in that product is shown, no further analysis would be necessary for eligibility because no product of nature exception is recited (i.e., Step 2B is not necessary because the answer to Step 2A is NO). For claims including limitations in addition to the nature-based product, further eligibility analysis is required.
If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, then the claim recites a "product of nature" exception, and requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-4 recite the following natural product: a bacterial strain with a 16S with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 – e.g. Kitasatospora-like strain B/00227 and claim 13 recites the Kitasatospora-like strain B/00227.
MPEP2106.04(C) II sets forth:
Appropriate characteristics can be expressed as the nature-based product’s structure, function, and/or other properties, and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Non-limiting examples of the types of characteristics considered by the courts when determining whether there is a marked difference include:
• Biological or pharmacological functions or activities;
• Chemical and physical properties;
• Phenotype, including functional and structural characteristics; and
• Structure and form, whether chemical, genetic or physical.
“To show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart or an incidental change in a characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Myriad, 569 U.S. at 580, 106 USPQ2d at 1974-75. Thus, in order to be markedly different, applicant must have caused the claimed product to possess at least one characteristic that is different from that of the counterpart.” (MPEP2106.04 (c)II. C).
Comparing the relevant characteristics between the product of claims 1-4 and 9-13 and its naturally occurring counterpart, the examiner finds no markedly difference characteristics between the characteristics. The claimed Kitasatospora-like strain B/00227 occurs naturally. If there are no markedly different characteristics between the product of the claim and the naturally occurring counterpart, the claim is probed for the presence of additional limitations. The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the natural product is sufficiently different than is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the natural product, the claim fails to integrate the natural product into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
There are no additional limitations to the natural product in claims 1-4 and 9-13.
The recitation of the phrase “bacterial population for conferring a broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a plant” (claim 10) is not considered an additional limitation the only recited component of said formulation is the bacteria itself and therefore encompasses naturally bacterial forms/compositions.
The recitation of the phrase “formulation for conferring a broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a plant” (claim 11) is not considered an additional limitation the only recited component of said formulation is the bacteria itself and therefore encompasses naturally bacterial forms/compositions.
The recitation of the phrase “for conferring a broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a plant”…” (claims 1 and 9-11) is not considered an additional limitation as it encompasses naturally occurring compositions and their inherent characteristics.
Considering the additional limitations in addition to the natural product together as a whole, the additional elements do not rise to the level of significantly more than the natural product.
In combination, the lack of additional limitations, acted upon by the judicial exception (or natural law, or natural product), fail to rise to the level of significantly more. No additional limitation has clearly been identified.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of a naturally occurring product or natural phenomena. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Biological Deposit
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is apparent that the B/00227 strain is required in order to practice the invention. The deposit of biological organisms is considered by the Examiner to be necessary for the enablement of the current invention (see 37 CRF 1.808(a)). The examiner acknowledges the deposit of said organism with the Polish Collection of Microorganisms with the deposit ID of B/00227 in partial compliance with this requirement. However, said deposits are not in full compliance with 37 CFR 1.803-1.809.
If the deposit is made under terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by Applicants or person(s) associated with the patent owner (assignee) who is in a position to make such assurances, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature, stating that the deposit has been made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty and that all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirements. See 37 CFR 1.808.
If a deposit is not made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit, or declaration by Applicants or person(s) associated with the patent owner (assignee) who is in a position to make such assurances, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature, stating that the following criteria have been met:
1) during the pendency of the application, access to the deposit will be afforded to one determined by the Commissioner to be entitled thereto;
2) all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent; and
3) the deposits will be maintained for a term of at least thirty (30) years from the date of the deposit or for the enforceable life of the patent or for a period of at least five (5) years after the most recent request for the furnishing of a sample of the deposited material, whichever is longest; and
4) a viability statement in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.807; and
5) the deposit will be replaced should it become necessary due to inviability, contamination or loss of capability to function in the manner described in the specification.
In addition, the identifying information set forth in 37 CRF 1.809(d) should be added to the specification. See 37 CFR 1.803 – 1.809 for additional explanation of these requirements.
It should be noted that the claims refer to “deposit ID B/00227” suggesting that the deposit number for the recited strain is “B/00227”. However, the specification makes no However, the specification refers to B/00227 as the strain identifier for specific Kitasatospora -like strain (see page 37 for example).
Written Description
Claim 1-4 and 9-13 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.
The instant claims are drawn to bacterial strains with a 16S polynucleotide with a sequence with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 and comprising a nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 wherein said bacterial strain confers a broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a plant. The rejected claims optionally encompass the B/00227 strain or mutants thereof that confer a broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a plant in a similar manner as the B/00227 strain (claim 9). Given the specification defines “pathogen” as “organisms that cause harmful effects to the health and vigor of plants. Plant pathogens include fungi, bacteria, viruses, insects,10 nematodes, and the like.” (see page 8, lines 7-10). Consequently, the rejected claims encompass the any and all bacteria a 16S polynucleotide with a sequence with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 and comprising a nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 that convey resistance against any and all pathogens in any and all plants.
To fulfill the written description requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, the specification must describe at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed genus, or alternatively describe a representative member of the claimed genus, which shares a particularly defining feature common to at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed genus, which would enable the skilled artisan to immediately recognize and distinguish its members from others, so as to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that Applicant has possession the claimed invention. To adequately describe the genus of bacterial strains, Applicant must adequately describe not only which bacteria have a 16S polynucleotide with a sequence with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 and comprising a nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1, but also which of those strains (if any) are capable of conveying broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a given pathogen to a given plant. The specification is limited to the in vitro effect of the B/00227 strain on the growth of Fusarium graminearum (Example 1); the in vitro effect of the B/00227 strain on the growth of Ramularia collo-cygni strains, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum strains, Fusarium oxysporum strains, Fusarium pseudograminearum strains, Rhizoctonai solani strains, Botrytis cinerea strains, Colletotrichum graminicola strains, Microdochium nivale strains, Gaemannomyces gramis var, tritici strains, Tapesia yallundae, PDA, Phytophthora infestans PDA and Rhizobium rhizogenes (Example 2); the effect of B/00227 against Rhizoctonia and Pythium in Lactuca sativa plants (Example 3); and the effect of B/00227 against Fusarium graminearum strains on Triticum aestivum plants (Examples 4 and 5). The specification, with the exception of prophetic statements regarding the efficacy of the broad genera of bacteria with the claimed biological effects against a laundry list of “plant pathogens”, is silent with regard to any Kitasatospora--like strains (other than B/00225, B00226, B/00227, B/00228 and B/00231) having any type of efficacy against any plant pathogen. This limited disclosure cannot be extrapolated to the claimed genus of bacteria. Consequently, the skilled artisan cannot immediately envision, or recognize at least a substantial number of members of the claimed genus of bacteria with the claimed genomic and biological characteristics.
MPEP § 2163.02 states, “[a]n objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, 'does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed' ”. The courts have decided:
The purpose of the “written description” requirement is broader than to merely explain how to “make and use”; the applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed.
See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Federal Circuit, 1991). Furthermore, the written description provision of 35 USC § 112 is severable from its enablement provision; and adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
MPEP 2163.02 further states, “[p]ossession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing the invention was 'ready for patenting' such as by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention” See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by "whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it"). Moreover, because the claims encompass a genus of variant species, an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. However, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; nor has Applicant shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; nor has Applicant described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Additionally, MPEP 2163 states:
"A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”
And:
For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., koff) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.).
Therefore, because the art is unpredictable, in accordance with the MPEP and currently case law, the description of claimed bacteria with a 16S polynucleotide with a sequence with at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 and comprising a nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 wherein said bacterial strain confers a broad-spectrum pathogen control or resistance to a plant is lacking.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-13 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.
Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…comprises at one 16S nucleotide sequence…”. It is unclear what is meant to be engendered by said phrase as a sequence constitutes an abstraction and does not constitute patentable material (see Federal Register Vol. 66, No 4, pages 1092-1099). Consequently, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. It is suggested that the phrase “comprises at least one 16S polynucleotide with the sequence…” be used instead.
Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…comprises a nucleotide sequence according to SEQ ID No 1.”. It is unclear whether said phrase is referring to the entire sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 or merely a portion of it due to the use of the article “a”. If the former is the case, it is suggested that the article “the” be used instead.
Claim 9 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…in a similar manner to said deposited strains.”. It is unclear what constitutes a “similar manner” what degree of divergence in modes of action can be present and still be considered “similar”? As written, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…comprising purified bacterial strains according to claim 1.”. It is unclear what is meant to be engendered by said claim as claim 1 is limited to a single bacterial strain.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "purified bacterial strains" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…comprising purified bacterial strains according to claim 1.”. It is unclear what is meant to be engendered by said claim as claim 1 is limited to a single bacterial strain.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "purified bacterial strains" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…comprising purified bacterial strains according to claim 1.”. It is unclear what is meant to be engendered by said claim as claim 1 is limited to a single bacterial strain.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "purified bacterial strains" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rendered vague and indefinite by the use of the phrase “…comprising bacterial strains according to claim 1.”. It is unclear what is meant to be engendered by said claim as claim 1 is limited to a single bacterial strain.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "bacterial strains" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuenzalida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2022/0053770).
Fuenzalida et al. disclose bacteria (Streptomyces xanthocidicus) with a 16S polynucleotide with 99.1% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 (see SEQ ID NO:9482 and alignment) below. Fuenzalida et al. further disclose that said bacteria can be at a concentration of at least 1 x 103 CFU/ml (see paragraph [0143]); that said bacteria trigger Induced Systemic Resistance (see paragraph [0010]); and that said bacteria can be in the form of endospores (see paragraph [0010]). Given, that the rejected claims merely require that the bacteria contain a 16S polynucleotide with “a” sequence within SEQ ID NO:1 (i.e. they only have to have two contiguous amino acids in common with SEQ ID NO:1), Fuenzalida et al. anticipates all the limitations of the rejected claims.
RESULT 1
US-17-520-587-9482
Sequence 9482, US/17520587
Patent No. 11805774
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/17/520,587
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2021-11-05
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 17/503,196
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2021-10-15
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/US20/28569
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2020-04-16
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/835,281
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2019-04-17
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 10221
SEQ ID NO 9482
LENGTH: 1529
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: Streptomyces xanthocidicus
Query Match 99.1%; Score 1507.6; Length 1529;
Best Local Similarity 99.4%;
Matches 1513; Conservative 0; Mismatches 9; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 CACGGAGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAGGACGAACGCTGGCGGCGTGCTTAACACATGCAAGT 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 5 CACGGAGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAGGACGAACGCTGGCGGCGTGCTTAACACATGCAAGT 64
Qy 61 CGAACGGTGAAGCCCTTCGGGGTGGATCAGTGGCGAACGGGTGAGTAACACGTGGGCAAT 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 65 CGAACGGTGAAGCCCTTCGGGGTGGATCAGTGGCGAACGGGTGAGTAACACGTGGGCAAT 124
Qy 121 CTGCCCTGCACTCTGGGACAAGCCCTGGAAACGGGGTCTAATACCGGATATGACCTTCCT 180
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||
Db 125 CTGCCCTGCACTCTGGGACAAGCCCTGGAAACGGGGTCTAATACCGGATACGACCTTCCT 184
Qy 181 CCGCATGGGGGTTGGTGGAAAGCTCCGGCGGTGCAGGATGAGCCCGCGGCCTATCAGCTT 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 185 CCGCATGGGGGTTGGTGGAAAGCTCCGGCGGTGCAGGATGAGCCCGCGGCCTATCAGCTT 244
Qy 241 GTTGGTGGGGTAATGGCCTACCAAGGCGACGACGGGTAGCCGGCCTGAGAGGGCGACCGG 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 245 GTTGGTGGGGTAATGGCCTACCAAGGCGACGACGGGTAGCCGGCCTGAGAGGGCGACCGG 304
Qy 301 CCACACTGGGACTGAGACACGGCCCAGACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAGTGGGGAATATTGC 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 305 CCACACTGGGACTGAGACACGGCCCAGACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAGTGGGGAATATTGC 364
Qy 361 ACAATGGGCGAAAGCCTGATGCAGCGACGCCGCGTGAGGGATGACGGCCTTCGGGTTGTA 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||
Db 365 ACAATGGGCGAAAGCCTGATGCAGCGACGCCGCGTGAGGGACGACGGCCTTCGGGTTGTA 424
Qy 421 AACCTCTTTCAGCAGGGAAGAAGCGCAAGTGACGGTACCTGCAGAAGAAGCACCGGCTAA 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 425 AACCTCTTTCAGCAGGGAAGAAGCGCAAGTGACGGTACCTGCAGAAGAAGCACCGGCTAA 484
Qy 481 CTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGTAGGGTGCGAGCGTTGTCCGGAATTATTGGGCG 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 485 CTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGTAGGGTGCGAGCGTTGTCCGGAATTATTGGGCG 544
Qy 541 TAAAGAGCTCGTAGGCGGCCTGTCGCGTCGGATGTGAAAGCCCGGGGCTTAACCCCGGGT 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 545 TAAAGAGCTCGTAGGCGGCCTGTCGCGTCGGATGTGAAAGCCCGGGGCTTAACCCCGGGT 604
Qy 601 CTGCATTCGATACGGGCAGGCTAGAGTGTGGTAGGGGAGATCGGAATTCCTGGTGTAGCG 660
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 605 CTGCATTCGATACGGGCAGGCTAGAGTGTGGTAGGGGAGATCGGAATTCCTGGTGTAGCG 664
Qy 661 GTGAAATGCGCAGATATCAGGAGGAACACCGGTGGCGAAGGCGGATCTCTGGGCCATTAC 720
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 665 GTGAAATGCGCAGATATCAGGAGGAACACCGGTGGCGAAGGCGGATCTCTGGGCCATTAC 724
Qy 721 TGACGCTGAGGAGCGAAAGCGTGGGGAGCGAACAGGATTAGATACCCTGGTAGTCCACGC 780
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 725 TGACGCTGAGGAGCGAAAGCGTGGGGAGCGAACAGGATTAGATACCCTGGTAGTCCACGC 784
Qy 781 CGTAAACGTTGGGAACTAGGTGTTGGCGACATTCCACGTCGTCGGTGCCGCAGCTAACGC 840
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 785 CGTAAACGTTGGGAACTAGGTGTTGGCGACATTCCACGTCGTCGGTGCCGCAGCTAACGC 844
Qy 841 ATTAAGTTCCCCGCCTGGGGAGTACGGCCGCAAGGCTAAAACTCAAAGGAATTGACGGGG 900
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 845 ATTAAGTTCCCCGCCTGGGGAGTACGGCCGCAAGGCTAAAACTCAAAGGAATTGACGGGG 904
Qy 901 GCCCGCACAAGCAGCGGAGCATGTGGCTTAATTCGACGCAACGCGAAGAACCTTACCAAG 960
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 905 GCCCGCACAAGCAGCGGAGCATGTGGCTTAATTCGACGCAACGCGAAGAACCTTACCAAG 964
Qy 961 GCTTGACATATGCCGGAAAACCGTGGAGACACGGTCCCCCTTGTGGTCGGTATACAGGTG 1020
||||||||||||||||||| | |||||||| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 965 GCTTGACATATGCCGGAAACACCTGGAGACAGGTGCCCCCTTGTGGTCGGTATACAGGTG 1024
Qy 1021 GTGCATGGTTGTCGTCAGCTCGTGTCGTGAGATGTTGGGTTAAGTCCCGCAACGAGCGCA 1080
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1025 GTGCATGGTTGTCGTCAGCTCGTGTCGTGAGATGTTGGGTTAAGTCCCGCAACGAGCGCA 1084
Qy 1081 ACCCTTGTTCTGTGTTGCCAGCATGCCTTTCGGGGTGATGGGGACTCACAGGAGACTGCC 1140
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1085 ACCCTTGTTCTGTGTTGCCAGCATGCCTTTCGGGGTGATGGGGACTCACAGGAGACTGCC 1144
Qy 1141 GGGGTCAACTCGGAGGAAGGTGGGGACGACGTCAAATCATCATGCCCCTTATGTCTTGGG 1200
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1145 GGGGTCAACTCGGAGGAAGGTGGGGACGACGTCAAATCATCATGCCCCTTATGTCTTGGG 1204
Qy 1201 CTGCACACGTGCTACAATGGTCGGTACAAAGGGCTGCGATGCCGTGAGGCGGAGCGAATC 1260
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
Db 1205 CTGCACACGTGCTACAATGGTCGGTACAAAGGGCTGCGATGCCGCGAGGCGGAGCGAATC 1264
Qy 1261 CCAAAAAGCCGGCCTCAGTTCGGATTGGGGTCTGCAACTCGACCCCATGAAGTTGGAGTT 1320
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1265 CCAAAAAGCCGGCCTCAGTTCGGATTGGGGTCTGCAACTCGACCCCATGAAGTTGGAGTT 1324
Qy 1321 GCTAGTAATCGCAGATCAGCATGCTGCGGTGAATACGTTCCCGGGCCTTGTACACACCGC 1380
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1325 GCTAGTAATCGCAGATCAGCATGCTGCGGTGAATACGTTCCCGGGCCTTGTACACACCGC 1384
Qy 1381 CCGTCACGTCACGAAAGTCGGTAACACCCGAAGCCGGTGGCCTAACCCGTAAGGGGAGGA 1440
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1385 CCGTCACGTCACGAAAGTCGGTAACACCCGAAGCCGGTGGCCTAACCCGTAAGGGGAGGA 1444
Qy 1441 GCCGTCGAAGGTGGGACCAGCGATTGGGACGAAGTCGTAACAAGGTAGCCGTACCGGAAG 1500
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1445 GCCGTCGAAGGTGGGACCAGCGATTGGGACGAAGTCGTAACAAGGTAGCCGTACCGGAAG 1504
Qy 1501 GTGCGGCTGGATCACCTCCTTT 1522
||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1505 GTGCGGCTGGATCACCTCCTTT 1526
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A ZEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 6:30 am - 3pm 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, Daniel Kolker can be reached at 571-272-3181. 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.
/ROBERT A ZEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645 March 6, 2026