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
Claims status
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-15 have been amended. There are no new or canceled claims. Claims 1-15 are pending and subjected of this Office Action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) 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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keasling et al. (WO 2007136762 A2; hereafter Keasling; PTO-892).
As claims 1-6, 8-10, Keasling teaches genetically engineered microorganisms to produce products from the fatty acid biosynthetic pathway (fatty acid derivatives), as well as methods of their use. See abstract.
Keasling teaches Chlorogloea fritschii. See claim 27.
Keasling teaches the cloned genes were put under the control of IPTG-inducible promoters (T7, tac or lac promoters). See page 51.
Keasling teaches an exogenous DNA sequence encoding an ABC transporter will be functionally expressed by the recombinant host microorganism, so that the microorganism exports the fatty acid derivative into the culture medium. In one example, the ABC transporter is an ABC transporter from Caenorhabditis elegans, Arabidopsis thalania, Alkaligenes eutrophus or Rhodococcus erythropolis (locus AAN73268). In another example, the ABC transporter is an ABC transporter chosen from CER5 (locuses AtIg51500 or AY734542), AtMRPS, AmiS2 and AtPGPl. In some examples, the ABC transporter is CER5. In yet another example, the CER5 gene is from Arabidopsis (locuses AtI g51500, AY734542, At3g21090 and At Ig51460). See pages 39-40; paragraph 4.
Kealing teaches the transport protein can be, for example, a fatty acid transport protein (FATP) selected from Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, Mycobacterium tuberculosis or Saccharomyces cerevisiae or any one of the mammalian FATP's. See page 40, paragraph 2.
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 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.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keasling et al. (WO 2007136762 A2; hereafter Keasling; PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10 above, in view of Shanmugarajah et al. (Published 2019; hereafter Shanmugarajah; PTP-892) and evidenced by Shiono et al. (Published 2014; hereafter Shiono; PTO-892).
Keasling teaches all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-10 as fully disclosed and incorporated herein.
However, Keasling does not specifically teach Arabidopsis thaliana ABCG11 protein or a functional homolog thereof or Oryza sativa ABCG15 protein or a functional homolog thereof as in claim 7.
Shanmugarajah teaches that the transport of lipid-like compounds seems to be a well conserved function amongst plant half-size ABCG transporters. The involvement of AtABCG1 in transport of aliphatic suberin precursors with higher chain length (C24 or C26) in Arabidopsis roots, which is pertinent to claim 7.
Shanmugarajah teaches ABCG half-size transporters from the same phylogenetic clade act together in order to build up specific diffusion barriers. For example, AtABCG11, AtABCG12, and AtABCG13 are involved in cuticle formation, which is pertinent to claim 7.
Shiono teaches two Arabidopsis WBC/WHITE-subgroup ABC transporters, AtABCG11 and AtABCG12, which are localized in the plasma membrane, have been implicated in the formation of cuticular waxes. RCN1/OsABCG5 exports very-long-chain fatty acids of suberin monomers and/or diacids to the apoplast in the hypodermis, which is pertinent to claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Keasling and Shanmugarajah thereby arriving at the invention of claim 7. Since Keasling teaches that exogenous DNA sequence encoding an ABC transporter can be functionally expressed by the recombinant host microorganism, so that the microorganism exports the fatty acid derivative into the culture medium and Shanmugarajah teaches that the Arabidopsis ABC half-size transporter AtABCG1 can transport longer chain aliphatic monomers from the cytoplasm, fatty alcohols (C26–C30) and fatty acids (C24–C30) in a chain length, 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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanmugarajah et al. (Published 2019; hereafter Shanmugarajah; PTP-892) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10 above, and in further view of Berry et al. (WO 2009111513 A1; hereafter Berry; PTO-892).
Keasling teaches all the limitations of claims 1-6, 8-10 as fully disclosed and incorporated herein.
However, neither Keasling nor Shanmugarajah teach oleaginous algae, as claim 11.
Keasling and Shanmugarajah do not teach algae select from Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta, Rhodophyta, Xanthophyta, Chrysophyta, Bacillariophyta, Cryptophyta, Dinophyta, Euglenophyta, Cyanophyta and Myxophyta as claim 12.
Berry teaches Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta, Rhodophyta, Xanthophyta, Chrysophyta, Cryptophyta, Euglenophyta and Cyanophyta, which is pertinent to claims 11-12. See for example, page 11-15; paragraph [0051].
Berry teaches a method for producing carbon-based product of interest or intermediate thereof comprising: introducing one or more engineered nucleic acids into a carbon fixing organism, wherein said engineered host cell is capable of using a minimum amount of light energy to synthesize a carbon-based product of interest directly from carbon dioxide and water, culturing said engineered host cell, then isolating a carbon-based product of interest from said engineered cell or culture medium. In a related embodiment, the cell is cultured in a photobioreactor. In another related embodiment, the carbon-based products of interest are released, permeated or exported from the cell. In yet another related embodiment, the carbon-based product is isolated from the culture medium, which is pertinent to claims 13-14. See for example, paragraph [0055].
Berry teaches Hydrocarbons encompass biofuels, as well as plastics, waxes, solvents and oils. A biofuel is any fuel that derives from a biological source. Biofuel refers to one or more hydrocarbons, one or more alcohols, one or more fatty esters or a mixture thereof. Preferably, liquid hydrocarbons are used, which is pertinent to claims 13-14. See for example, paragraph [0096].
Berry teaches that “methods for cultivation of photosynthetic organisms in liquid media and on agarose-containing plates are well known to those skilled in the art (see, e.g., websites associated with ATCC, and with the Institute Pasteur)”, which is pertinent to claims 13-15. See for example, paragraph [00138].
Berry teaches “These compounds can also be used as feedstock for subsequent reactions for example transesterification, hydrogenation, catalytic cracking via either hydrogenation, pyrolisis, or both or epoxidations reactions to make other products.”, which is pertinent to claim 15. See for example, paragraph [006].
Berry teaches “the second step, the oxidative decarboxylation of the α-ketoacids to the corresponding branched-chain acyl-CoA, is catalyzed by branched-chain α-keto acid dehydrogenase complexes”, which is pertinent to claim 15. See for example, paragraph [00243].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Keasling and Berry, thereby arriving at the invention of claim 11, 13-14. Since Keasling teaches the use of exogenous DNA sequence encoding an ABC transporter can be functionally expressed by the recombinant host microorganism, so that the microorganism exports the fatty acid derivative into the culture medium and Berry teaches engineering of photoautotrophic organisms, including oleaginous algae that produce high yields of fatty acids, 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. In the instant case, all elements (i.e., ABC fatty acids transports, pathways and mechanisms to confer direct carbon-based products producing capacity to photoautotrophic organisms) were known in the art. In addition, combining these elements yields a method/composition wherein each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; thus, the results of the combination would be recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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