COMPOSITION FOR CLOTTING MILK, METHODS AND USES THEREOF

§103 §112

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, drawn to a composition, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction were not required and that claim 1 is a linking claim to amended claim 13. This is not found persuasive because serious search and/or examination burden is not the basis for the lack of unity requirement. As set forth in the restriction requirement of 05/05/2026, the claimed inventions lac unity because the shared technical feature does not constitute a special technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art, in particular Faiveley et al. The amendment of claim 13 to depend from claim 1 does not alter this determination because the shared technical feature, which is the composition of claim 1, must constitute a contribution over the prior art to establish unity of invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Status of Claims Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 1-12 are under consideration, as claims 13-15 are withdrawn. Priority The present application claims status as a 371 (National Stage) of PCT/EP2022/070216 filed on 07/19/2022 and claims priority to international application EP21186598.5 filed on 07/20/2021. Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority and papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The present application and all claims are being examined with an effective filing date of 07/20/2021. In future actions, the effective filing date may change due to amendments or further review of priority documents. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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 1-12 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. It is noted that MPEP 2111.01 states that ''[d]uring examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. Claim 1 has been broadly interpreted as encompassing a genus of compositions comprising a first coagulant having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2 and a second coagulant having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. MPEP 2163 I. states that to “satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163. II.A.3.(a) states that “Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163.II.A.3.(a).ii), “Satisfactory disclosure of a ‘representative number’ depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. 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…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.’" In the instant case, SEQ ID NOs: 1-7 encodes enzymes that are intended to have specific biological activity (i.e., milk clotting activity). The specification discloses the specific sequence but fails to describe which regions are essential for catalytic function or how the structure-function relationship is maintained across sequences that share only 80% identity. Given that the primary amino acid sequence determines protein structure and function, the breadth of the claimed genus encompasses a wide range of possible structural variants throughout the molecule. The specification does not identify any essential or critical residues, nor does it describe which amino acid changes (substitutions, insertions, or deletions) can be made, and still result in a protein having the desired activity/function. As such, while the specification defines some species falling within the genus, it fails to define any structural features commonly possessed by members of the genus that distinguish them from others. There is no guidance that would allow a skilled artisan to predict which sequences within the claimed scope would retain the required enzymatic function. Although the specification discloses certain species falling within the claimed genera, including genetically engineered coagulants represented by SEQ ID NOs: 8-52, the disclosed species do not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the full claimed genera. In particular, SEQ ID NOs: 8-52 are disclosed as genetically engineered coagulants derived from SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, or 5. With respect to the first coagulant, the specification does not disclose a representative number of variants of SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2 that reflect the structural diversity encompassed by the claimed genus having at least 80% sequence identity. With respect to the second coagulant, although the specification discloses particular genetically engineered variants derived from SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, or 5, the disclosure of these particular variants does not adequately reflect the full structural diversity encompassed by the genus of coagulants having at least 80% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NOs: 3-7. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose a corresponding representative set of variants of SEQ ID NOs: 6 or 7. Thus, while the specification describes particular species falling within the claimed genera, it does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genera or establish a reasonable structure-function correlation sufficient to demonstrate possession of their full scope. The specification does not provide sufficient guidance regarding the structural characteristics commonly possessed by members of the claimed genera that retain the requisite coagulant activity. Accordingly, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of the full scope of the claimed genera of coagulants having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1-7. Claims 2 and 4 do not overcome the deficiency. Claim 2 limits the first coagulant to having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2 but retains the genus of second coagulants having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 3-7. Claim 4 limits the second coagulant to having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 3-7 but retains the genus of first coagulants having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2. Furthermore, although the specification discloses particular genetically engineered variants derived from SEQ ID NOs: 3-5, it does not disclose a corresponding representative set of variants of SEQ ID NOs: 6 or 7 sufficient to demonstrate possession of the full genus recited in claim 4. Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 2 and 4 do not remedy the written description deficiency of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-12 fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 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 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faiveley et al. (US20180110234, cited in the IDS). Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Faiveley et al. teaches compositions for clotting milk, the composition comprising a blend of two or more coagulants having different origins (Specification, para 0051), in particular from “two or more different animal or microbial species or genuses” (para 0083). Faiveley et al. further teaches an embodiment, wherein the composition “is a blend of a camel coagulant and a non-camel coagulant” (para 0088). Faiveley et al. specifically discloses SEQ ID NO: 9, which has 100% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 2 (see sequence alignment below) and, as evidenced by NCBI, is derived from Cryphonectria parasitica. Faiveley et al. also discloses SEQ ID NO: 13, which has 100% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 3 (see sequence alignment below), derived from Camelus dromedarius. It is noted that Faiveley et al. discloses other sequences as well having varying degrees of similarity, including 100%, to other claimed sequences (e.g., SEQ ID NO: 12 of Faiveley et al. has 100% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 5 – see application file for full disclosure). Regarding claims 5-8, Faiveley et al. teaches “wherein the composition comprise from 10-50%, such as e.g., 20% of a non-bovine or a non-camel coagulant, relative to the total amount of coagulant” (para 0089). As discussed above, the non-camel coagulant (SEQ ID NO: 9 of Faiveley) corresponds to the claimed first coagulant (instant SEQ ID NO: 2) and the camel coagulant (SEQ ID NO: 13 of Faiveley) corresponds to the claimed second coagulant (SEQ ID NO: 3). Thus, the expressly disclosed embodiment comprising 20% non-camel coagulant falls within the claimed amounts of at most 25% and 1-25% of the first coagulant. In a composition comprising the 2 coagulants, the corresponding amount of camel coagulant is 80% of the total coagulant, which also falls within the claimed amounts of at least 75% and 75-99% second coagulant. With respect to the recitation of the relative amounts based on International Milk Clotting Units (IMCU/ml), Faiveley et al. teaches the determination of milk clotting activity in IMCU/ml (para 0053-0054 and 0061). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative amounts of the first and second coagulants based on their milk clotting activity to obtain a desired milk clotting performance, including the amounts falling within the claimed ranges, through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 - “Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions”). Regarding claims 9 and 10, Faiveley et al. further teaches compositions comprising additional components in addition to the coagulants, including milk (para 0087), which inherently comprises lactose as required by claim 9. Faiveley et al. also expressly contemplates the concentrations of the respective coagulants in terms of weight percent, including compositions comprising at least 50 w/w% of one coagulant and at least 15 w/w% of a second coagulant (para 0082). Furthermore, Faiveley et al. teaches preparation of coagulant compositions by dilution with water (para 0074). Thus, Faiveley et al. teaches compositions comprising the coagulants together with additional components and teaches varying the relative concentrations of the coagulants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the total concentration of the first and second coagulants relative to the total weight of the composition to provide a suitable milk-clotting composition, including a concentration of 25–65% w/w, through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 11, Faiveley et al. teaches coagulant samples prepared using an acetic acid buffer having a pH of 5.5 (para 0053), which falls within the claimed pH range of 4.5–5.5. An invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art if some teaching in the prior art would have led that person to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and combine the coagulants corresponding to SEQ ID NOs. 9 and 13 disclosed by Faiveley et al., because Faiveley et al. teaches milk-clotting compositions comprising blends of two or more coagulants having different origins, including blends comprising a camel coagulant and a non-camel coagulant. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and combine the disclosed coagulants, including those corresponding to SEQ ID NOs. 9 and 13, in accordance with Faiveley et al.’s teaching to provide a milk-clotting composition comprising coagulants of different origins. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Faiveley et al. exemplifies milk-clotting compositions comprising blends of coagulants of different origins and demonstrates successful milk coagulation using such blends, including an 80/20 blend of camel and bovine chymosin (Example 5, para 196–198). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faiveley et al., as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by 1E5O_E (NCBI database, Nov 2012, cited in PTO-892) and further in view of Dhayal et al. (US2022232880A1, cited in PTO-892). The teachings of claim 1 have already been discussed above. Briefly, Faiveley et al. teaches compositions comprising two coagulants derived from different origins and expressly discloses SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 13, which correspond to instant SEQ ID NOs: 2 and 3, respectively. Furthermore, as evidenced by 1E5O_E, SEQ ID NO: 9 of Faiveley et al., is an endothiapepsin. However, Faiveley et al. does not expressly teach an encapsulated endothiapepsin. Dhayal et al. teaches methods for encapsulating bioactive agents and teaches that the bioactive agent may be an enzyme, such as lysozyme, lactase, or a dairy enzyme such as chymosin (Specification, para 006 and 0035). An invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art if the claimed invention merely combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to encapsulate the endothiapepsin of Faiveley et al. according to the encapsulation method taught by Dhayal et al. because Dhayal et al. expressly teaches that its encapsulation method is applicable to enzymes, including the dairy enzyme chymosin. Because endothiapepsin, like chymosin, is an enzyme used for milk coagulation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known encapsulation method of Dhayal et al. could likewise be applied to the endothiapepsin of Faiveley et al. Such a modification would have involved combining known prior art elements according to a known method, with the endothiapepsin continuing to perform its known function as a milk-clotting enzyme. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Dhayal et al. expressly teaches that its encapsulation method is suitable for enzymes, including dairy enzymes. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faiveley et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dekker et al. (WO2012127005A1, cited in PTO-892). The teachings of claim 1 have already been discussed above. Briefly, Faiveley et al. teaches compositions comprising two coagulants derived from different origins and expressly discloses SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 13, which correspond to instant SEQ ID NOs: 2 and 3, respectively. Faiveley et al. also teaches said compositions comprising additional components, including milk and water and a pH of 5.5. Faiveley et al. does not teach wherein the composition comprises 40-60% w/w glycerol at a pH of 5-5.5. Dekker et al. teaches liquid chymosin compositions, which causes milk to clot (Specification, Background), further comprising a polyalcohol preservative, wherein the polyalcohol may be glycerol, sorbitol, or propanediol, with glycerol being most preferred (page 13, lines 10–33). Dekker et al. teaches that a preservative is “required to prevent microbial spoilage during shelf life…” (page 4, lines 19-26) and the polyalcohol decreases water activity and thereby assists in achieving microbial stability. Dekker et al. teaches that microbial stability is a measure for the rate at which microorganisms can proliferate and grow in the composition and the stated goal of achieving high microbial stability (Background). Dekker et al. further teaches a preferred pH of 5.0–6.0 (pages 8–9) and specifically exemplifies a chymosin formulation comprising 50% (w/w) glycerol at pH 5.4 to preserve microbial stability (Example 2, page 20, lines 8–12; see also Example 3, page 21, lines 9–17). An invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art if some teaching in the prior art would have led that person to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Faiveley et al. to include glycerol and to formulate the composition at the glycerol concentration and pH taught by Dekker et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because Dekker et al. teaches that glycerol decreases the water activity of the composition and thereby assists in achieving microbial stability during shelf life. Such a modification would have involved the predictable use of a known preservative in a milk-clotting enzyme composition for its known stabilizing function. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Dekker et al. teaches microbial stability of milk clotting compositions during shelf life, by the addition of glycerol at 50% w/w to said composition. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Sequence alignment of SEQ ID NO: 13 of Faiveley et al. and instant SEQ ID NO: 3 US-15-549-359A-13 Filing date in PALM: 2017-08-07 Sequence 13, US/15549359A Publication No. US20180110234A1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: CHR. HANSEN A/S TITLE OF INVENTION: BLENDS OF CHYMOSINS WITH IMPROVED MILK-CLOTTING PROPERTIES FILE REFERENCE: 030427-0259 CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/549,359A CURRENT FILING DATE: 2017-11-30 PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/EP2016/052842 PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-02-10 PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15154513.4 PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-02-10 NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 17 SEQ ID NO 13 LENGTH: 381 TYPE: PRT ORGANISM: Camelus dromedarius Query Match 100.0%; Score 1998; Length 381; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 381; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 MRCLVVLLAALALSQASGITRIPLHKGKTLRKALKERGLLEDFLQRQQYAVSSKYSSLGK 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 MRCLVVLLAALALSQASGITRIPLHKGKTLRKALKERGLLEDFLQRQQYAVSSKYSSLGK 60 Qy 61 VAREPLTSYLDSQYFGKIYIGTPPQEFTVVFDTGSSDLWVPSIYCKSNVCKNHHRFDPRK 120 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 61 VAREPLTSYLDSQYFGKIYIGTPPQEFTVVFDTGSSDLWVPSIYCKSNVCKNHHRFDPRK 120 Qy 121 SSTFRNLGKPLSIHYGTGSMEGFLGYDTVTVSNIVDPNQTVGLSTEQPGEVFTYSEFDGI 180 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 121 SSTFRNLGKPLSIHYGTGSMEGFLGYDTVTVSNIVDPNQTVGLSTEQPGEVFTYSEFDGI 180 Qy 181 LGLAYPSLASEYSVPVFDNMMDRHLVARDLFSVYMDRNGQGSMLTLGAIDPSYYTGSLHW 240 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 181 LGLAYPSLASEYSVPVFDNMMDRHLVARDLFSVYMDRNGQGSMLTLGAIDPSYYTGSLHW 240 Qy 241 VPVTLQQYWQFTVDSVTINGVAVACVGGCQAILDTGTSVLFGPSSDILKIQMAIGATENR 300 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 241 VPVTLQQYWQFTVDSVTINGVAVACVGGCQAILDTGTSVLFGPSSDILKIQMAIGATENR 300 Qy 301 YGEFDVNCGNLRSMPTVVFEINGRDYPLSPSAYTSKDQGFCTSGFQGDNNSELWILGDVF 360 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 301 YGEFDVNCGNLRSMPTVVFEINGRDYPLSPSAYTSKDQGFCTSGFQGDNNSELWILGDVF 360 Qy 361 IREYYSVFDRANNRVGLAKAI 381 ||||||||||||||||||||| Db 361 IREYYSVFDRANNRVGLAKAI 381 Sequence alignment of SEQ ID NO: 9 of Faiveley et al. and instant SEQ ID NO: 2 US-15-549-359A-9 Filing date in PALM: 2017-08-07 Sequence 9, US/15549359A Publication No. US20180110234A1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: CHR. HANSEN A/S TITLE OF INVENTION: BLENDS OF CHYMOSINS WITH IMPROVED MILK-CLOTTING PROPERTIES FILE REFERENCE: 030427-0259 CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/549,359A CURRENT FILING DATE: 2017-11-30 PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/EP2016/052842 PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-02-10 PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15154513.4 PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-02-10 NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 17 SEQ ID NO 9 LENGTH: 330 TYPE: PRT ORGANISM: Unknown FEATURE: OTHER INFORMATION: Description of Unknown: Endotheiapepsin sequence Query Match 100.0%; Score 1690; Length 330; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 330; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 STGSATTTPIDSLDDAYITPVQIGTPAQTLNLDFDTGSSDLWVFSSETTASEVDGQTIYT 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 STGSATTTPIDSLDDAYITPVQIGTPAQTLNLDFDTGSSDLWVFSSETTASEVDGQTIYT 60 Qy 61 PSKSTTAKLLSGATWSISYGDGSSSSGDVYTDTVSVGGLTVTGQAVESAKKVSSSFTEDS 120 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 61 PSKSTTAKLLSGATWSISYGDGSSSSGDVYTDTVSVGGLTVTGQAVESAKKVSSSFTEDS 120 Qy 121 TIDGLLGLAFSTLNTVSPTQQKTFFDNAKASLDSPVFTADLGYHAPGTYNFGFIDTTAYT 180 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 121 TIDGLLGLAFSTLNTVSPTQQKTFFDNAKASLDSPVFTADLGYHAPGTYNFGFIDTTAYT 180 Qy 181 GSITYTAVSTKQGFWEWTSTGYAVGSGTFKSTSIDGIADTGTTLLYLPATVVSAYWAQVS 240 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 181 GSITYTAVSTKQGFWEWTSTGYAVGSGTFKSTSIDGIADTGTTLLYLPATVVSAYWAQVS 240 Qy 241 GAKSSSSVGGYVFPCSATLPSFTFGVGSARIVIPGDYIDFGPISTGSSSCFGGIQSSAGI 300 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 241 GAKSSSSVGGYVFPCSATLPSFTFGVGSARIVIPGDYIDFGPISTGSSSCFGGIQSSAGI 300 Qy 301 GINIFGDVALKAAFVVFNGATTPTLGFASK 330 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 301 GINIFGDVALKAAFVVFNGATTPTLGFASK 330 Conclusion No claim is in condition for allowance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAGHMEH NINA MOAZZAMI whose telephone number is (703)756-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Mondesi can be reached at 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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. /NAGHMEH NINA MOAZZAMI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1652 /ROBERT B MONDESI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1652