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 .
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, in the paper of 7/20/2026, is acknowledged. Applicants' arguments filed on 7/20/2026, have been fully considered and are deemed to be persuasive to overcome some of the rejections previously applied. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-15, 17-21 are still at issue and are present for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of the invention of Group 1, claim 1-15 to a recombinant yeast cell, in the paper of 5/25/2025, is acknowledged.
Applicant's election without traverse of the following species:
Species Group 1: E.C. 2.7.1.29;
Species Group 2: E.C. 1.2.1.10;
Species Group 3: Each of E.C. 1.1.1.6 (NAD+ linked glycerol dehydrogenase);
Species Group 4: an enzyme having phosphoketolase (PKL) activity selected from EC 4.1.2.9;
Species Group 5: an enzyme having phosphotransacetylase (PTA) activity (EC 2.3.1.8);
Species Group 6: Each of enzyme having acetate kinase (ACK) activity (EC 2.7.2.12);
Species Group 7: the enzyme NAD+ dependent acetylating acetaldehyde dehydrogenase activity of sequence according SEQ ID NO:22;
Species Group 8: the glycerol transporter of SEQ ID NO: 14;
Species Group 9: the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae;
Species Group 10: the fermentation product ethanol;
in the paper of 5/25/2025, is acknowledged.
Applicant's election without traverse of the following species:
Species Group 11: The deletions/reductions in activity of glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity listed in claims 12
in the paper of 9/15/2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “GDP2” which should be “GPD2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn based upon applicants amendment of the claims in the paper of 7/20/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This rejection was stated in the previous office action as it applied to previous claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15. In response applicants have amended the claims and traverse the rejection as it applies to the newly amended claims.
Amended claim 1 (claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 dependent from) is directed recombinant yeast cell comprising: - one or more genes encoding an enzyme having glycerol dehydrogenase activity; - one or more genes encoding a dihydroxyacetone kinase ([[E.C.]] EC 2.7.1.28 and/or [[E.C.]] EC 2.7.1.29); - one or more genes encoding an enzyme having phosphoketolase (PKL) activity (EC 4.1.2.9 or EC 4.1.2.22) or an enzyme having an amino acid sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO: 5, 6, 7, or 8 or functional homologues thereof having a sequence identity of at least 70% to the amino acid sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO: 5, 6, 7, or 8;
- one or more genes encoding an enzyme having phosphotransacetylase (PTA) activity (EC 2.3.1.8) or an enzyme having an amino acid sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO: 9, 10, 11, or 12 or functional homologues thereof having a sequence identity of at least 70% to the amino acid sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO: 9, 10, 11, or 12;
- one or more genes encoding an enzyme having at least NAD+ dependent acetylating acetaldehyde dehydrogenase activity (EC 1.2.1.10 or EC 1.1.1.2); [[and]] - one or more genes encoding a glycerol transporter and - a glycerol synthesis pathway comprising the glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenases GPD1 and GDP2 and the glycerol 3-phosphate phosphohydrolases GPP1 and GPP2.
As stated in the previous office action, support for the recitation “a glycerol synthesis pathway comprising genes encoding glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenases GPD1 and GDP2 and genes encoding glycerol 3-phosphate phosphohydrolases GPP1 and GPP2” and those claimed recombinant yeast cells comprising a glycerol synthesis pathway comprising genes encoding glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenases GPD1 and GDP2 and genes encoding glycerol 3-phosphate phosphohydrolases GPP1 and GPP2 is not found in applicants specification at the time of filing and is thus considered new matter.
It is noted that applicants have corrected the 112(b) issues noted previously amending the claims from referring to “genes” to the enzymes themselves, however this does not cause the withdrawal of the rejection based upon new matter, because it remains that applicants specification at the time of filing does not provide support for those recombinant yeast cells comprising a glycerol synthesis pathway comprising the glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenases GPD1 and GDP2 (GPD2) and the glycerol 3-phosphate phosphohydrolases GPP1 and GPP2.
Applicants traversal of the above rejection on the basis of applicants amendment of the claims as requested by the examiner, is not found persuasive as the Examiner made no request in the rejection under 112(a) other than where support for applicants amendment may be found.
Applicant is referred to the revised guidelines concerning compliance with the written description requirement of U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, published in the Official Gazette and also available at www.uspto.gov.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klassen et al. (WO2015/028583) is withdrawn based upon applicants amendment of the claims in the paper of 9/15/2025.
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 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen et al. (WO 2015/028583) in view of Shaw et al. (WO 2014/081803) is withdrawn based upon applicants amendment of the claims in the paper of 9/15/2025.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen et al. (WO2015/028583), Shaw et al. (WO 2014/081803), Argyros et al. (US 2016/0194669) and Mueller et al. (WO 2009/013159) as evidenced by Bertels et al. (Biomolecules, 11, 725, May 2021) is withdrawn based upon applicants amendment of the claims in the paper of 3/31/2026. Specifically the references do not make obvious the claimed recombinant yeast cell wherein the cell comprises a glycerol synthesis pathway comprising genes encoding glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenases GPD1 and GDP2 and genes encoding glycerol 3-phosphate phosphohydrolases GPP1 and GPP2 (see above rejection under 112 (b)).
Remarks
No claim is allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G HUTSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0930. The examiner can normally be reached on 6-3 EST Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Mondesi can be reached on (571) 272-0956. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
rgh
9/2/2026
/RICHARD G HUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights