DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-10 are under consideration in this Office Action.
In view of the claim amendment and arguments filed 07/08/2026, the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph; 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokawa et al. (A J Biosci Bioeng,Vol.124, No.1, 31 December 2017 (2017-12-31), Page 54-61; IDS filed 03/18/2024) in view of CN107267476 (2017-10-20; IDS filed 03/18/2024), Taguchi et al. (PNAS, November 11, 2008, 105 (45) 17323-17327; reference of record), WO2011029013 (2011-03-10; PTO reference of record).
The arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. According to MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Thus, while claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims to thereby narrow the scope of the claims. The claims recite “derived from” which is broadly interpreted to encompass the claimed enzyme and/or protein having any amino acid sequence and structure. Further the claims are not limited to production of PLA with biomass of the modified cyanobacteria is significantly increased to unmodified cyanobacteria. Thus, the claims are rejected for reasons as restated below.
Hirokawa et al. teach construction of a novel D-lactate producing pathway from dihydroxyacetone phosphate of the Calvin cycle in cyanobacterium, Synechococcus elongatus PCC 7942. Hirokawa et al. teach that lactate is a valuable commodity that can be used for the biodegradable plastic, polylactic acid, where D-lactate is a key precursor. Hirokawa et al. teach genetically engineering Synechococcus elongatus PCC 794 to express E.coli mgsA methylglyoxal synthase gene for conversion of DHAP to methylglyoxal. See entire publication and abstract especially MATERIALS AND METHOD section, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section, and pages 55-59.
The teachings of the reference differ from the claims in that the reference does not teach the claimed genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus, wherein the genome of the genetically engineered strain is integrated with a coding sequence of exogenous D-lactate dehydrogenase gene, a coding sequence of exogenous propionyl-CoA transferase gene, and a coding sequence of exogenous polyhydroxyalkanoate synthase gene, enabling the genetically engineered strain to express exogenous D-lactate dehydrogenase, exogenous propionyl-CoA transferase, and exogenous polyhydroxyalkanoate synthase.
CN107267476 teaches a recombinant microorganism, which is prepared by introducing, into a starting bacterium, an expression vector containing a gene that encodes D-lactate dehydrogenase, wherein the starting bacterium may be a Synechococcus microorganism. CN107267476 teaches a method for performing illumination culture on the recombinant microorganism to prepare a lactic acid (see entire publication, abstract, and claims; see International Search Report dated October 25, 2022 in International Application No. PCT/CN2022/113485. English translation, cited in IDS filed 03/18/2024; PTO 892)
Taguchi et al. teach genetically engineered E.coli transformed to express propionyl-CoA transferase (PCT), engineered polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) synthase, β-ketothiolase, and acetoacetyl-CoA reductase which produces polylactate (PLA) including P(6 mol% LA-co-94 mol% 3HB). See entire publication and abstract especially Fig 2, Materials and Methods section, Discussion section, Results section, and pages 17324-27.
WO2011029013 teaches genetically engineering Synechococcus elongatus to express E.coli ldhA encoding lactate dehydrogenase, and LldP lactate transporter under IPTG-inducible promoters including lacUV5 and trp-lac strong promoters (see entire publication and claims especially paragraphs [0005]- [0016], Examples 1-7, and claims 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and/or combine the reference teachings to make the claimed invention by genetically engineering the Synechococcus elongatus of Hirokawa et al. modify the coding sequences of D-lactate dehydrogenase, propionyl-CoA transferase, polyhydroxyalkanoate synthase taught by the above references to be under control of the promoters taught by WO2011029013; and integrating the coding sequences into the genome of the Synechococcus elongatus. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a genetically engineered Synechococcus elongatus expressing D-lactate dehydrogenase, propionyl-CoA transferase, polyhydroxyalkanoate synthase where each of the enzymes can be isolated and purified from the genetically engineered Synechococcus elongatus, or the genetically engineered Synechococcus elongatus can be used to produce polylactic acid. It would have been obvious to place each of the coding sequences under control of the promoters recited in claims 3, 4 as routine optimization and/or desired in order to overexpress the genes in the genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus and direct substrates and carbon flow in the genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus for the production of polylactic acid. It would have been obvious to integrate the acetyl-CoA synthase gene of claim 6 as routine optimization and/or desired in order to direct substrates and carbon flow in the genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus for the production of polylactic acid by expression of the acetyl-CoA synthase gene. It would have been obvious to integrate of a coding sequence of exogenous sRNA capable of inhibiting the expression of acetate kinase gene into the genome of the genetically engineered strain recited in claim 8 as routine optimization and/or desired in order to direct substrates and carbon flow in the genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus for the production of polylactic acid by sRNA capable of inhibiting expression of the genes. It would have been obvious to knock out the genes encoding the enzymes of claim 7, 9 as routine optimization and/or desired in order to direct substrates and carbon flow in the genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus for the production of polylactic acid by deletion or knock out of the recited genes. It would have been obvious to integrate of a coding sequence of exogenous sRNA capable of inhibiting the expression of the genes recited in claim 10 into the genome of the genetically engineered strain as routine optimization and/or desired in order to direct substrates and carbon flow in the genetically engineered strain of Synechococcus elongatus for the production of polylactic acid by sRNA capable of inhibiting expression of the genes. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success because genetically modifying Synechococcus elongatus for the production of are known in the art as shown by the reference teachings. Hence, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 extension fee 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 Christian L Fronda whose telephone number is (571)272 0929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternate Fridays between 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 on (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.
/CHRISTIAN L FRONDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights