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 without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 7 and 8 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.
Regarding claims 3, 7 and 8, the claims all contain the limitation “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position # is…”; however, in claims 2, 5 and 6 applicant claims “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position # is substituted with…”. It is unclear as currently worded if applicant is claiming that the variant comprises a substitution wherein the substitution is the amino acid listed, or if applicant is attempting to claim a sequence of the variant prior to substitution. Making it further unclear 2 of the residues claimed this way are the residue listed(Claims 7-8), but the third is different (Claim 2). If applicant is using a different claim construction to convey the same type of limitation as claims 2, 5 and 6, it is recommended that they use consistent language. If applicant is claiming that the variant prior to substitution was a certain residue and by implication the substitution must be something other than the residue listed, making it clear what the substitution is, or what the residue being substituted was would provide clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sycheva (USPGPub20090197309).
Regarding claims 1-3 and the limitations “An acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS) variant, wherein an amino acid corresponding to position 17 in an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 is substituted with another amino acid”, “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 17 is substituted with alanine.”, and “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 17 is asparagine.” Sycheva teaches a variant of AHAS derived from E. coli and teaches the residue at position 17, which is an Asparagine may be replaced with any amino acid ([0012]-[0014]). Sycheva thus discloses variant AHAS which have Asparagine at position 17 as well as disclosing variants which are substituted with alanine as one of ordinary skill in the art can readily envision all mutants of this specific residue.
The above reference anticipates the claim subject matter.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerstmeir (USPGpub 20160115506) further in view of Sycheva (USPGPub20090197309).
Regarding claims 1-3 and the limitations “An acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS) variant, wherein an amino acid corresponding to position 17 in an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 is substituted with another amino acid”, “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 17 is substituted with alanine.”, and “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 17 is asparagine.” Gerstmeir teaches an AHAS matching SEQ ID: 1, (Seq ID: 10). Gerstmeir teaches variants of AHAS at position 42 and 47 ([0107]-[0108], [0028]), that are no longer limited by feedback inhibition.
Gerstmeir does not teach mutation of residue 17, this difference however would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it is taught in the same field of endeavor as mutation of AHAS enzyme for purposes of desensitization to feed back inhibition.
In the same field of endeavor Sycheva teaches that position 17 of AHAS small subunit, ilvN ([0013]-[0022], Abstract) can be mutated to desensitize the enzyme to feedback inhibition by valine ([0013]-[0022], Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would thus find it obvious that in creating mutants that are no longer limited by feedback inhibition the same residue of interest discovered in a variant of the enzyme could be mutated looking for improved properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would further be motivated to do so to create an enzyme which could overproduce the products of interest without feedback inhibition occurring. One of ordinary skill in the at would further have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Syncheva successfully does it, and it is routine to create mutants for this purpose in the art as disclosed by Gerstmeir.
One of ordinary skill in the art would thus find it obvious to make mutation to every residue at position 17 and arrive at asparagine and alanine.
Regarding claims 4-6 and the limitations “further comprising any one or more substitutions selected from a substitution of an amino acid corresponding to position 42 with another amino acid; a substitution of an amino acid corresponding to position 47 with another amino acid; or combinations thereof, based on the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.”, “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 42 is substituted with valine”, “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 47 is substituted with leucine” Gertmeir teaches that position 42 is preferably valine and that position 47 is preferably leucine ([0108])
Regarding claims 7 and 8 and the limitations “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 42 is alanine” and “wherein the amino acid corresponding to position 47 is histidine” In the instant Sequence which is identical to that of Gerstmeir, position 42 is an alanine and position 47 is a histidine.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES Z CONSTANTINE whose telephone number is (571)270-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/CHARLES Z CONSTANTINE/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights