DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I ( claims 1, 3-5 and 8) in the reply filed on 3/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that "the common technical feature is not merely the genus of DFX as a naturally occurring/non-engineered. protein. Rather, the claimed subject matter across the groups is linked by the specifically engineered DFX polypeptide as defined in the claims-i.e., a DFX polypeptide having the recited sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 together with one or more of the specifically recited mutation positions" and applicant alleges that the cited reference Devreese does not teach this special technical feature (see page 7, especially 2nd paragraph of applicant's response of 3/4 /2026). This argument is not found persuasive. Referring to Devreese desulfoferrodoxin (DFX), it is noted that the desulfoferrodoxin (DFX) non-heme iron-binding protein polypeptide comprising a sequence at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 and at least a mutation at a position selected from the group consisting of isoleucine (I) 76, histidine (H) 68, glutamate (E) 106, lysine (K) 58, E108, K90, I15, I16, leucine (L) 81, I89, glutamine (Q) 88, phenylalanine (F) 102, tyrosine (Y) 80, Y7, and combinations thereof relative to SEQ ID NO:1.(see Devreese page #139 Figure 1 where at least 1 position 15 contains isoleucine as instantly claimed. Thus the DFX as claimed is known and is not a special technical feature shared by all inventions..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS cited NPL to Devreese et al "Primary structure of Desulfoferrodoxin ATCC 27774. a new class of non-heme iron protein" published in FEBS Letters 385 (1996) pages 138-142, hereinafter Devreese., in view of Fraser (US 2015/0351435 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 Devreese teaches, A thermolabile desulfoferrodoxin (DFX) non-heme iron-binding protein polypeptide comprising a sequence at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 and a mutation at a position selected from the group consisting of isoleucine (I) 76, histidine (H) 68, glutamate (E) 106, lysine (K) 58, E108, K90, I15, I16, leucine (L) 81, I89, glutamine (Q) 88, phenylalanine (F) 102, tyrosine (Y) 80, Y7, and combinations thereof relative to SEQ ID NO:1. (See page 139 Figure 1 where positions 15, 68, 76, 81 which are recited as a mutation in claims 1 and 3-4 are taught).
Regarding a non-heme protein iron-bringing protein with a sequence at least 80% identical (claim 1) and at least 90% identical to SEQ ID 1, Devreese teaches of desulfoferrodextrin as addressed above. Desulfoferrodoxin as taught by Devreese necessarily has a pink or gray color. Evidence to support that Desulfoferrodoxin has a pink or gray color is provided by (Devreese, page 138, Column 2). Devreese teaches that desulfoferrodoxin is a non-heme iron protein that has a pink and grey color.
Regarding the limitation of claim 8, Devreese does not teach using DFX for meat substitute, as claimed. Fraser teaches of a food product such as a meat substitute ([0017]) comprising a non-heme protein from a source material such as bacterial proteins ([0039]) and natural coloring agents ([0065]). Fraser also teaches a replica burger comprising 3.86% pea vicilin (i.e., pea protein), 2.52% soy protein concentrate, 2% pea legumin (i.e., pea protein), and 4.68% soy protein isolate ([0079], Table 4), for a total of 13.06% plant protein (i.e., non-meat), which a meat substitute as claimed. Fraser teaches that the composition can comprising coloring agents ([0065]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have included a non-heme iron-binding protein in raw/ uncooked meat substitute in an amount of DFX protein to provide the desired color of the composition. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Although the cited prior art does not explicitly state that the meat substitute has increased red color relative to an equivalent meat substitute lacking the non-heme iron-binding protein, this limitation would be an inherent property of the meat substitute. Evidence to support that the meat substitute has increased red color relative to an equivalent meat substitute lacking the non-heme iron-binding protein is provided by the instant specification. The instant specification discloses that adding a pigment composition comprising a non-heme iron-binding polypeptide to a non-meat protein forms a meat substitute with increased red color prior to cooking relative to an equivalent meat substitute without the pigment composition ([0071]). Furthermore, MPEP §2112.01(II) states that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS cited NPL to Devreese et al "Primary structure of Desulfoferrodoxin ATCC 27774. a new class of non-heme iron protein" published in FEBS Letters 385 (1996) pages 138-142, hereinafter Devreese., in view of Fraser (US 2015/0351435 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4 and 8, further in view of IDS referenced UniProt (A0A1M6L0Q2, UniProt, last updated March 15, 2017 [accessed online December 3, 2025]).
Devreese and Fraser are silent regarding the thermolabile DFX of claim 1, wherein the polypeptide comprises a sequence at least 80% identical to the sequence of at least one of SEQ ID NOs:4-9, Uniprot discloses a non-heme protein iron-bringing protein with a sequence at least 80% identical to which has a 100% identity with SEQ ID 2. And source is the same as applicant’s preferred source Anaerotignum lactatifermentans (p. 1, Protein and Organism) which has a 100% identity with SEQ ID 2. Since the source of DFX is the same, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention will have expectation that DFX polypeptide taught by uniport
comprises a sequence taught by uniport will have similar identity with SEQ ID 4-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that DFX polypeptide from Anaerotignum lactatifermentans will have SEQ ID that is similar to the claimed SEQ ID.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because DFX as taught by Devrees has a pink or grey color, so one would use it as a natural coloring agent as is instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights