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
Original claims 1-19 filed 2/19/25 are under consideration in this Office Action.
2. Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), Provisional Application 62251885, filed 11/06/2015, is acknowledged.
3. Drawings
The drawings filed 2/19/25 are acknowledged.
4. IDS filed 4/10/25 is acknowledged. A signed copy of the same is provided with this Office Action.
5. Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
6. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Written Description)
Claims 1-19 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. Claims 1-19 are drawn to the following genus claims:
1. A method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation, said method comprising contacting a medium with (i) a recombinant yeast host cell comprising a first genetic modification for expressing a heterologous glucoamylase (GA) and (ii) a trehalase, wherein the production of the fermentation product is increased when compared to a control method with a control yeast host cell lacking the first genetic modification.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell comprises a further genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol or regulating glycerol synthesis.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell expresses less of a native glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1 (GPD1) polypeptide than a control yeast host cell lacking the further genetic modification.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell lacks the ability to produce a native GPD1 polypeptide.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell expresses less of a native glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 2 (GPD2) polypeptide than a control yeast host cell lacking the further genetic modification.
6. The method of claim 2, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell lacks the ability to produce a native GPD2 polypeptide.
7. The method of claim 2, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell expresses a heterologous glucose-inactivated glycerol proton symporter STL1 (STL1) protein.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell is from the genus Saccharomyces sp.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell is from the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the trehalase is extracellular from the recombinant yeast host cell.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the trehalase is provided in a purified form.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the trehalase belongs to E.C. 3.1.2.1.28.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the trehalase is an acid trehalase.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the trehalase is a neutral trehalase.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the medium comprises trehalose.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the medium comprises starch.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the starch is provided in a gelatinized or a raw form.
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the medium is derived from corn.
19. The method of claim 1, wherein the fermentation product is ethanol.
In University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1938, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials”. As indicated in MPEP § 2163, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. In addition, MPEP § 2163 states that a representative number of species means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The specification, however, only provides description of a process for converting a substrate into a fermentation product using a recombinant yeast host cell comprising: (i) a first genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol or regulating glycerol synthesis and/or allowing the production of an heterologous glucoamylase of SEQ ID NO: 3; and (ii) a second genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose or regulating trehalose synthesis and/or allowing the expression of an heterologous trehalase of SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 2.
A limited number of about 1 species of Gene encoding Saccharomyces cerevisiae STL1 [sugar transporter-like (STL1) polypeptide] and 2 species of the heterologous trehalase which is an acid trehalase and is obtained from the genus Aspergillus sp. SEQ ID Nos. 1 & 2, and employed in the method of increasing the production of a fermentation product have been described that may be similarly used in the recombinant yeast constructs and cultured in the fermentation process, and which species number are not representative of the genus claimed. Further there is no description of variously proposed heterologous STL1 and trehalase from any source with any defined accompanying structure. There is no structure to function relationship between the yeast host cell, the proposed origin or structure of the enzymes or polypeptides and further the expression of numerous heterologous STL1 and a heterologous trehalase, and further including glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1 (GPD1) polypeptide & GDP2 polypeptide.
According to MPEP 2163, to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v.Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed.Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
The scope of each genus includes many members of yeast host cell constructs comprising numerous unknown DNA encoding numerous native and non-native (heterologous) enzymes which are further genetically modified with no description of the proposed modifications for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol or regulating glycerol synthesis; and further employing the yeast cell construct in a method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation.
Furthermore, each genus is highly variable because a significant number of structural differences between genus members exit. The specification does not describe and define any structural features and amino acid sequences commonly possessed by each genus. There is no art-recognized correlation between any structure of the unknown native enzymes and further the expression of a heterologous STL1, heterologous trehalase and glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1 (GPD1) & GDP2.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to identify without further testing what specific polypeptide/DNA sequences that can be varied without having or encode proteins having STL1,GPD1 & GDP2 and a trehalase function and structure, for example.
"To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe aninvention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what isclaimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "bydescribing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,"and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966."Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
Further, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. In Regents" of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. the court stated:
"A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284985 (CCPA 1973) ("In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus ...") Regents" of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is "not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence." MPEP § 2163. The MPEP does state that for a generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP § 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP § 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number of species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gostelli, the courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli, 872, F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include "level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient." MPEP § 2163. While all of the factors have been considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below.
Further, to provide evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include: a) the scope of the invention; b) actual reduction to practice; c) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas; d) relevant identifying characteristics including complete structure, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, and structure/function correlation; e) method of making the claimed compounds; f) level of skill and knowledge in the art; and g) predictability in the art.
Moreover, Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.1991), states that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed" (See page 1117). The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed" (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus of polypeptides, and therefore, conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993).
Therefore, for all these reasons the specification lacks adequate written description, and one of skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (second paragraph)
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “ A method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation, said method comprising contacting a medium with (i)…”. The claim is vague about the word “medium”. Clarification is required. Claims 2-14 are included in the rejection
Following is suggested to overcome the rejection for failing to correct the defect present in the base claim(s).
8. Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recite “The method of claim 1, wherein the medium comprises trehalose.”
The claim is confusing as the term ‘medium’ according to the claims 16 or 18 and the specification is either ‘starch’ or “obtained from starch”, and which is acted upon by the enzyme trehalose. Correction and cancelation of claim 15 is suggested.
9. Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27 & 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,570,421. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason(s). Given the fact pattern of the instant case as well as the patent, the species claims of the patent anticipates the instant genus (or broad) claims.
Instant claims 1-19 are drawn to as shown above in paragraph 6.
Patented claim 27 (for example), is drawn to a method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation, said method comprising fermenting a medium with at least one recombinant yeast host cell of claim 1 so as to increase the production of the fermentation product, when compared to a control yeast host cell lacking the first and second genetic modification defined in claim 1.
Patented claim 1 is drawn to a recombinant yeast host cell comprising: (i) a first genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol or regulating glycerol synthesis and/or allowing the production of an heterologous glucoamylase, wherein the first genetic modification for reducing the production of the one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol and the one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol is glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1 (GPD1), a polypeptide encoded by a gpd1 ortholog, glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 2 (GPD2) polypeptide and/or a polypeptide encoded by a gpd2 ortholog, wherein the first genetic modification for regulating glycerol synthesis is for reducing the production of FDP1 suppressor (FPS1) polypeptide or a polypeptide encoded by a fps1 ortholog and/or is for increasing the production of sugar transporter-like (STL1) polypeptide or a polypeptide encoded by a stl1 ortholog; and (ii) a second genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose or regulating trehalose synthesis and/or allowing the expression of an heterologous trehalase; wherein the second genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose and the one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose is trehalose-6-phosphate synthase 1 (TPS1), a polypeptide encoded by a tps1 ortholog, trehalose-6-phosphate synthase 2(TPS2) polypeptide and/or a polypeptide encoded by a tps2 ortholog; and wherein the second genetic modification for regulating trehalose synthesis is for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes regulating trehalose synthesis and the one or more native enzymes regulating trehalose synthesis is trehalose phosphate synthase (TPS3), a polypeptide encoded by a tps3 ortholog, trehalose synthase long chain (TSL1) polypeptide, a polypeptide encoded by a tsl1 ortholog, neutral trehalase 1 (NTH1), a polypeptide encoded by a nth1 ortholog, neutral trehalase 2 (NTH2), a polypeptide encoded by a nth2 ortholog, acid trehalase 1 (ATH1), a polypeptide encoded by a ath1 ortholog, hexokinase 1 (HXK1), a polypeptide encoded by a hxk1 ortholog, hexokinase 2 (HXK2), a polypeptide encoded by a hxk2 ortholog, glucokinase 1 (GLK1), a polypeptide encoded by a glk1 ortholog, phosphoglucomutase 1 (PGM1), a polypeptide encoded by a pgm1 ortholog, phosphoglucomutase 2 (PGM2), a polypeptide encoded by a pgm2 ortholog, glycogen phosphorylase 1 (GPH1), a polypeptide encoded by a gph1 ortholog, UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (UGP1), a polypeptide encoded by a ugp1 ortholog, glycogen synthase 1 (GSY1), a polypeptide encoded by a gsy1 ortholog, glycogen synthase 2 (GSY2) and/or a polypeptide encoded by a gsy2 ortholog.
Given the fact pattern of the instant case as well as the patent the species claims of the patent anticipates the instant genus claims.
10. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,947,568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason(s). Given the fact pattern of the instant case as well as the patent, the species claims of the patent anticipates the instant genus (or broad) claims.
Instant claims 1-19 are drawn to as shown above in paragraph 6.
Patented claim 1 (for example) is drawn to as follows.
A process for converting a substrate into a fermentation product, the process comprising contacting biomass comprising the substrate with a recombinant yeast host cell under conditions to allow conversion of at least a part of the substrate into the fermentation product, wherein the recombinant yeast host cell comprises: (i) a first genetic modification for reducing production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol or regulating glycerol synthesis and/or allowing production of an heterologous glucoamylase, wherein the first genetic modification for reducing the production of the one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol and the one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol is glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1 (GPD1), a polypeptide encoded by a gpd1 ortholog, glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 2 (GPD2) polypeptide and/or a polypeptide encoded by a gpd2 ortholog; the first genetic modification for regulating glycerol synthesis is for reducing production of FDP1 suppressor (FPS1) polypeptide or a polypeptide encoded by a fps1 ortholog and/or is for increasing production of sugar transporter-like (STL1) polypeptide and/or a polypeptide encoded by a stl1 ortholog, and (ii) a second genetic modification for reducing production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose or regulating trehalose synthesis and/or allowing expression of an heterologous trehalase, wherein the second genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose and the one or more native enzymes that function to produce trehalose is trehalose-6-phosphate synthase 1 (TPS1), a polypeptide encoded by a tps1 ortholog, trehalose-6-phosphate synthase 2 (TPS2) polypeptide and/or a polypeptide encoded by a tps2 ortholog; the second genetic modification for regulating trehalose synthesis is for reducing production of one or more native enzymes regulating trehalose synthesis and the one or more native enzymes regulating trehalose synthesis is trehalose phosphate synthase (TPS3), a polypeptide encoded by a tps3 ortholog, trehalose synthase long chain (TSL1) polypeptide, a polypeptide encoded by a tsl1 ortholog, neutral trehalase 1 (NTH1), a polypeptide encoded by a nth1 ortholog, neutral trehalase 2 (NTH2), a polypeptide encoded by a nth2 ortholog, acid trehalase 1 (ATH1), a polypeptide encoded by a ath1 ortholog, hexokinase 1 (HXK1), a polypeptide encoded by a hxk1 ortholog, hexokinase 2 (HXK2), a polypeptide encoded by a hxk2 ortholog, glucokinase 1 (GLK1), a polypeptide encoded by a glk1 ortholog, phosphoglucomutase 1 (PGM1), a polypeptide encoded by a pgm1 ortholog, phosphoglucomutase 2 (PGM2), a polypeptide encoded by a pgm2 ortholog, glycogen phosphorylase 1 (GPH1), a polypeptide encoded by a gph1 ortholog, UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (UGP1), a polypeptide encoded by a ugp1 ortholog, glycogen synthase 1 (GSY1), a polypeptide encoded by a gsy1 ortholog, glycogen synthase 2 (GSY2) and/or a polypeptide encoded by a gsy2 ortholog.
Given the fact pattern of the instant case as well as the patent the species claims of the patent anticipates the instant genus claims.
11. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,734. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason(s).
Instant claims 1-19 are drawn to as shown above in paragraph 6.
Patented claim 15-17 (for example) is drawn to as follows.
15. A process for converting a substrate into a fermentation product, the process comprising contacting biomass comprising the substrate with the recombinant yeast host cell of claim 1 under conditions to allow conversion of at least a part of the substrate into the fermentation product.
16. The process of claim 15, wherein the substrate comprises corn, starch, maltodextrin or a combination thereof.
17. The process of claim 15, wherein the fermentation product is ethanol.
Claim 1 of the patent – is drawn to: A recombinant yeast host cell comprising: (i) a first genetic modification for reducing the production of one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol, thereby reducing the production of glycerol, wherein the one or more native enzymes that function to produce glycerol is a glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 1 (GPD1) polypeptide, a polypeptide encoded by a gpd1 gene ortholog, a glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 2 (GPD2) polypeptide, a polypeptide encoded by a gpd2 gene ortholog, or a combination thereof; (ii) a second genetic modification for allowing the production of a heterologous glucoamylase; and (iii) a third genetic modification for allowing the expression of a heterologous trehalase.
Given the fact pattern of the instant case as well as the patent, the instant claims are obvious over the patented claims by choice selection of heterologous glucoamylase and heterologous trehalase and there recombinant expression in yeast host cell.
12. In US Patent 12,258,606 – claim 1 for example is drawn to: A method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation, said method comprising contacting a medium with (i) a recombinant yeast host cell comprising a first genetic modification for expressing a heterologous glucose-inactivated glycerol proton symporter STL1 (STL1) protein and (ii) a trehalase, wherein the production of the fermentation product is increased when compared to a control method with a control yeast host cell lacking the first genetic modification; is not used in ODP rejection as the claim does not use glucoamylase in the recombinant yeast host cell construct, and a method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation.
The remaining claims 2-19 also do not use glucoamylase in the recombinant yeast host cell construct, and a method of increasing the production of a fermentation product during a fermentation.
13. No claim is allowed.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEKCHAND SAIDHA whose telephone number is (571) 272 0940. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8.00-5.30. 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 B. 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 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.
/TEKCHAND SAIDHA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Recombinant Enzymes, Hoteling
Telephone: (571) 272-0940
Fax: (571) 273-0940
Prosecution Insights