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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Claims 3-5, 8, 11 have been amended. Claims 1-11 will be examined on the merits herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, certified English copies have not been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Published December 1, 2020; hereafter Wood; PTO-892) in view of Herivaux et al (Published 2018; hereafter Herivaux; PTO-892).
Wood teaches yeast, isogenic cells respond differentially to acute glucose removal and that there is metabolic control on cell-cycle progression at every cell-cycle stage.
Wood teaches that the nucleus-vacuole junction (NVJ) expansion is a strong predictor of cell fate.
Wood teaches the nutrient-sensing kinase Rim15 as a key biomarker predicting cell fates before acute glucose removal (AGR) stress.
Wood teaches Rim15 abundance prior to nutrient stress predicts behavior after nutrient stress.
Wood teaches that senescent cells, which display increased lipid storage and lipid droplet (LD) biogenesis.
Wood teaches elevated Rim15 levels prior to acute glucose removal (AGR) were highly correlated with quiescence, whereas cells with low Rim15 before AGR were more likely to be senescent. See Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Wood does not teach yeast 110315 gene.
Herivaux teaches yeast species, predicted histidine containing phosphotransfer and response regulator sequences in Saccharomycotina, Lipomyces starkeyi NRRL Y-11557, response regulators, Rim15, GenBank: ODQ74306.1. See for example, Supplemental Table 3.
Herivaux teaches Rim15 (RR) is well conserved within the Saccharomycotina and that some species from the basal lineages, especially Lipomyces starkeyi, harbor several filamentous-type HHKs that appear as relict genes that have been likely retained from a common ancestor of Saccharomycotina.
Herivaux teaches Rim15 is encoded by LIPSTDRAFT_110315; Lipst1_1_110315 (GenBank: ODQ74306). See figure below and PTO-892.
PNG
media_image2.png
1030
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wood and Herivaux, thereby arriving at the invention of claim 1-5, 9-11. Since low Rim15 before acute glucose removal triggers yeast cells into senescence, which display increased lipid storage and lipid droplet (LD) biogenesis compared to quiescence as taught by Wood and the LIPSTDRAFT_110315 gene of the highly efficient oleaginous yeast, Lipomyces starkeyi NRRL Y-11557 encodes Rim15 as taught by Herivaux, it would be obvious to regulate expression and/or function of 110315 gene, which encodes Rim15 (key biomarker predicts cell fates before acute glucose removal) in a yeast as a way to regulate oil and/or fat production ability in a yeast strain, it would been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; MPEP 2144.06.
See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Published December 1, 2020; hereafter Wood; PTO-892) and in view of Herivaux et al (Published 2018; hereafter Herivaux; PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-5, 9-11 above, and further view of Swinnen et al. (April 3, 2006; hereafter Swinnen; PTO-892).
Wood and Herivaux teach the limitations of claims 1-5, 9-11 as fully discussed above and incorporated herein.
However, neither Wood nor Herivaux explicitly teaches expression regulator and a function regulator of yeast 110315 gene.
Swinnen teaches the activity of Rim15 is regulated by the interplay of at least four intercepting nutrient-responsive pathways. See for example, Figure 2 below.
Swinnen teaches glucose. See for example, Figure 2 below.
Swinnen teaches Rim15 integrates signals from at least four nutrient-sensitive protein kinases, namely TORC1, Sch9 and Pho85-Pho80, which control sub-cellular localization, and PKA, which controls the activity of Rim15. See for example, Figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
654
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wood and Herivaux by incorporating a controlled expression of a Rim15 regulator thereby arriving at the invention of claim 6-8. Since Rim15 levels before acute glucose removal triggers yeast cells into senescence or quiescence, it would be obvious to control the levels of Rim15 by adding a regulator such as PKA, which controls Rim15 activity. Thus, it would be very desirable to use PKA as it acts as a repressor of Rim15 in the presence of glucose, and since low levels of Rim15 before acute glucose removal triggers senescence, which means overproduction of oils and/or fats by the yeast cells, it would been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; MPEP 2144.06.
See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRICILA HAUK TEODORO whose telephone number is (571)272-2784. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:15AM-3:00PM.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at (571) 272-2876. 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.
/PRICILA NMN HAUK TEODORO/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/HEATHER CALAMITA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights