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
This action is in response to Applicant’s response filed July 14, 2025.
Claims 4-5, 8-12 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 13-18 and 21-23 are pending and under examination herein.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2018/067227 filed on June 27, 2018 which claims priority to foreign application CHINA PCT/CN2017/091000 filed on June 30, 2017. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The effective filing date of the current application is June 30, 2017.
Response to Amendment on July 14, 2025
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of cancellation of the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 13-14, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmiedel et al. (US 2009/0156454 A1, published on June 18, 2009; previously cited) in view of Markussen et al. (WO 91/09941, published July 11, 1991).
Regarding claim 1, Schmiedel teaches granulates of sensitive ingredients of laundry detergent or cleaning compositions (title and description, paragraph 0002). Schmiedel teaches the incorporation of enzymes in liquid form, which are generally mixed into predominantly liquid or gelled laundry detergent and cleaning compositions (relevant to an enzyme slurry) (description, paragraph 0003). Schmiedel further teaches adding enzymes in solid form to liquid compositions (relevant to (a) enzyme particles) (description, paragraph 0007). Schmiedel teaches anionic surfactants may be in the form of their sodium, potassium or ammonium salts (relevant to (b) water-soluble salt of calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, zinc or ammonium) (description, paragraph 0248). Schmiedel further teaches a content of inorganic salt, preferably a sulfate, particularly preferably sodium sulfate (description, paragraph 0339). Schmiedel teaches the addition of a thickener including polyacrylate thickener, xanthan gum, gellan gum, alginate, carrageenan, carboxymethyl cellulose, wellan gum and modified natural products such as modified starches and celluloses (description, paragraph 0306). Schmiedel teaches the laundry detergent of cleaning composition can comprise 0.01 to 3 wt% thickener (relevant to (c) at least 0.1% w/w of xanthan gum, welan gum, gellan gum, alginate, carrageenan or microcrystalline cellulose) (description p.23, paragraph 0311). Schmiedel teaches a water content of increasing preference 5 to 95%, and quite particularly preferably with a water content of 50 wt% (relevant to (d) at least 50% w/w water) (description, p.25 paragraph 0338). Schmiedel teaches that compositions furnished with granulates preferably comprise enzymes in total quantities of 1 x 10-8 to 5 weight percent, based on active protein, (relevant to wherein the enzyme slurry comprises at least 5% w/w of active enzyme protein) (description, paragraph 0100). The prior art range overlaps the claimed range from 1-5 weight %, and therefore teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by Schmiedel, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05 I.
Schmiedel does not teach wherein the enzyme particles consist of enzyme crystals.
Markussen teaches an enzyme containing preparation, which means either a granulate or a liquid slurry (relevant to enzyme slurry) (description p.1, lines 3-6). Markussen teaches aqueous slurries can be used as additives to liquid detergents, in the starch industry and in the food industry (description p.1, lines 28-30). Markussen teaches that if the slurry is aqueous, the water activity or the ionic strength in the slurry has to be controlled in such manner that the entire amount or substantially the entire amount of the crystalline enzyme is maintained in the crystalline form (relevant to (a) enzyme particles) (description p.1 line 29 – description p.2, line 2). Markussen teaches that in a preferred embodiment, the preparation contains a protease and at least one other enzyme, whereby substantially 100% of the proteolytic activity is present as crystals (relevant to wherein the enzyme particles consist of enzyme crystals, and wherein the enzyme slurry comprises at least 5% w/w of active enzyme protein) (description p.4, lines 8-11). Markussen teaches examples combining sodium sulphate with crystalline enzyme (relevant to (b) a water-soluble salt selected from sodium sulfate) (description p.6, Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Schmiedel to replace the spray-dried enzyme particles taught by Schmiedel with enzyme crystals taught by Markussen, because Markussen teaches enzyme crystals can be desirable in the detergent industry. Each of Schmiedel and Markussen teach the use of enzyme crystals in a detergent composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that replacing spray-dried enzyme particles taught by Schmiedel with enzyme crystals taught by Markussen would predictably result in an enzyme slurry composition comprising enzyme crystal particles, because Markussen teaches enzyme crystals could be used in detergent formulations, and it was known in the art at the time of invention that enzymes could be crystallized into enzyme crystal particles.
Regarding claim 2, Schmiedel teaches the addition of a thickener including polyacrylate thickener, xanthan gum, gellan gum, alginate, carrageenan, carboxymethyl cellulose, wellan gum and modified natural products such as modified starches and celluloses (description, paragraph 0306). Schmiedel further teaches that the laundry detergent or cleaning composition can comprise 0.01 to 3 wt% of thickener, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.25 to 2.5% w/w (description, paragraph 0311).
Regarding claim 3, Schmiedel teaches that a large number of the most varied salts from the group of inorganic salts can be employed as electrolytes. Schmiedel teaches that the content of electrolytes in the laundry detergent or cleaning composition normally ranges from 0.1 to 5 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 1-10% w/w (description, paragraph 0314). Schmiedel further teaches a content of an inorganic salt, preferably a sulfate, particularly preferably sodium sulfate, from 3 to 20 wt% (description, paragraph 0338).
Regarding claims 6 and 22, Schmiedel teaches suitable enzymes are those from classes of the hydrolases, including proteases, esterases, lipases or lipolytic enzymes, amylases, cellulases or other glycosyl hydrolases, hemicellulases, cutinases, β-glucanases, oxidases, peroxidases, perhydrolases, laccases and mixtures of the cited enzymes (description, paragraph 0312).
Regarding claim 7, Schmiedel teaches plasticizers as an optional ingredient, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), especially short chain PEGs (description, paragraph 0043). Schmiedel further teaches lower aliphatic alcohols, but above all polyols such as glycerine, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol, or diglycerine phosphate as enzyme stabilizers against physical influences (description, paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 13, Schmiedel teaches that adding inhibitors, proteases are prevented from hydrolyzing other enzyme molecules (description, paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 14, Schmiedel teaches that one group of stabilizers are the reversible protease inhibitors (description, paragraph 0054). This includes benzamidine hydrochloride, borax, boric acids, boronic acids or their salts or esters are frequently used (description, paragraph 0054).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Schmiedel teaches that processes for manufacturing granulates of sensitive ingredients of laundry detergent or cleaning compositions per se are known to the person skilled in the art (description, paragraph 0205). Schmiedel further teaches that substantial prior art exists in particular for the manufacture of enzyme granulates (description, paragraph 0205). Schmiedel teaches preferred embodiments formed by inventive described granulates, wherein the sensitive laundry detergent or cleaning composition ingredient (a) concerns a perfume, an optical brightener, a bleach activator or an enzyme, particularly an enzyme stabilized against oxidation (relevant to an enzyme-containing detergent composition) (description, paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 17, Schmiedel teaches the approach of adding sensitive ingredients in the form of solid granulates to liquid laundry detergent and cleaning compositions builds on the extensive experience collected from the manufacture of enzyme granulates for use in solid compositions (relevant to wherein the detergent is a soap or detergent bar) (description, paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 21, Schmiedel teaches embodiments containing 3 to 30 wt% of the sensitive ingredient of the laundry detergent or cleaning composition (description, paragraph 0155). Schmiedel further teaches a composition having 3 to 7 wt.% enzyme, preferably an oxidation-stable enzyme (relevant to which comprises at least 5% w/w of active enzyme protein) (description, paragraph 0164). The prior art range overlaps the claimed range from 1-5 weight %, and therefore teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by Schmiedel, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 23, Schmiedel does not teach an enzyme slurry which is not a detergent.
However, Markussen teaches an enzyme containing preparation, which means either a granulate or a liquid slurry (relevant to enzyme slurry) (description p.1, lines 3-6). Markussen teaches aqueous slurries can be used in the starch industry and in the food industry, or as an additive to detergent (description p.1, lines 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Schmiedel to contain enzyme crystals taught by Markussen that was not a detergent, because Markussen teaches an enzyme slurry comprising enzyme crystals that can then be used in the food industry and starch industry, or as an additive in detergents. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that preparing an enzyme slurry comprising enzyme crystals taught by Markussen would predictably result in an enzyme slurry that is not a detergent and can be used in the food industry or starch industry, because it was known in the art at the time of invention that enzyme slurries could be prepared comprising enzyme crystals, and that the resulting slurries could be as additives to detergents or in the starch.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmiedel et al. (US 2009/0156454 A1, published on June 18, 2009; previously cited) in view of Markussen et al. (WO 91/09941, published July 11, 1991) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of McIver et al. (US 6,165,966 issued on December 26, 2000; previously cited) and Toscano et al. (WO 2016/097405, published on June 23, 2016; previously cited).
The teachings of Schmiedel and Markussen are discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Schmiedel teaches that reversible peptide inhibitors for the protease subtilisin and fusion proteins from proteases and specific peptide inhibitors are also suitable (description, paragraph 0054).
Schmiedel and Markussen do not teach specific protease inhibitor species as listed in claim 15.
However, McIver teaches liquid detergents containing proteolytic enzyme and protease inhibitors (title). McIver teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising an effective amount of a detersive surfactant, an active proteolytic enzyme, and a protease inhibitor having the formula Z—A—NH—CH(R)—C(O)—X (description column 2, lines 25-30). McIver further teaches that A is an amino acid moiety, preferably Ala, Gly, Val, Ile, Leu, Phe, or Lys (description column 4, lines 10-13). McIver teaches that X is a hydrogen or CF3; Z is an N-capping moiety and R is straight or branched C1-C6 unsubstituted alkyl, phenyl, or C7-C9 alkylaryl moieties (description column 2, lines 30-40). McIver further teaches the group methoxycarbonyl (Moc) and lists protease inhibitor examples containing combinations of 2 amino acids and different N-terminal groups (description column 5, line 1 – column 6, line 20).
McIver does not teach the protease inhibitors Cbz-Arg-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Tyr-CF3, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, Cbz-Val-Ala-Leu-H, Cbz-Val-Ala-Leu-CF3, Moc-Val-Ala-Leu-CF3, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Phe-H, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Phe-CF3, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Val-H, Cbz-Gly-Gly-Tyr-H, Cbz-Gly-Gly-Phe-H, Cbz-Arg-Val-Tyr-H, Cbz-Leu-Val-Tyr-H, Ac-Leu-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Tyr-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Phe-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Val-Tyr-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Met-H, Ac-Trp-Leu-Val-Tyr-H, MeO-CO-Val-Ala-Leu-H, MeNCO-Val-Ala-Leu-H, MeO-CO-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, MeO-CO-Phe-Gly-Ala-Phe-H, MeSO2-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, MeSO2-Val-Ala-Leu-H, PhCO2O-P(OH)(O)-Val-Ala-Leu-H, EtSO2-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, PhCH2SO2-Val-Ala-Leu-H, PhCH2O-P(OH)(O)-Leu-Ala-Leu-H, PhCH2O-P(OH)(O)-Phe-Ala-Leu-H, or MeO-P(OH)(O)-Leu-Gly-Ala-Leu-H.
However, Toscano teaches methods of improving binding of protease to inhibitor (abstract). Toscano teaches the protease inhibitors Cbz-Arg-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Tyr-CF3, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, Cbz-Val-Ala-Leu-H, Cbz-Val-Ala-Leu-CF3, Moc-Val-Ala-Leu-CF3, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Phe-H, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Phe-CF3, Cbz-Gly-Ala-Val-H, Cbz-Gly-Gly-Tyr-H, Cbz-Gly-Gly-Phe-H, Cbz-Arg-Val-Tyr-H, Cbz-Leu-Val-Tyr-H, Ac-Leu-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Tyr-Gly-Ala-Tyr-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Phe-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Val-Tyr-H, Ac-Phe-Gly-Ala-Met-H, Ac-Trp-Leu-Val-Tyr-H, MeO-CO-Val-Ala-Leu-H, MeNCO-Val-Ala-Leu-H, MeO-CO-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, MeO-CO-Phe-Gly-Ala-Phe-H, MeSO2-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, MeSO2-Val-Ala-Leu-H, PhCO2O-P(OH)(O)-Val-Ala-Leu-H, EtSO2-Phe-Gly-Ala-Leu-H, PhCH2SO2-Val-Ala-Leu-H, PhCH2O-P(OH)(O)-Leu-Ala-Leu-H, PhCH2O-P(OH)(O)-Phe-Ala-Leu-H, or MeO-P(OH)(O)-Leu-Gly-Ala-Leu-H.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a protease inhibitor selected from the group taught by Toscano based on the teachings of McIver as the enzyme inhibitor in the composition taught by Schmiedel in view of Markussen, because protease inhibitors were well known in the art at the time of invention, and the basic structure of effective protease inhibitors was also well known in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmiedel et al. (US 2009/0156454 A1, published on June 18, 2009; previously cited) in view of Markussen et al. (WO 91/09941, published July 11, 1991) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Blasey et al. (CA 2,305,562, published on August 21, 2000; previously cited).
The teachings of Schmiedel and Markussen are discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Schmiedel teaches the approach of adding sensitive ingredients in the form of solid granulates to liquid laundry detergent and cleaning compositions builds on the extensive experience collected from the manufacture of enzyme granulates for use in solid compositions (relevant to wherein the detergent is a soap or detergent bar) (description, paragraph 0007).
Schmiedel and Markussen do not explicitly teach wherein the detergent is a soap or detergent bar.
However, Blasey teaches the production of shaped detergent and cleaning composition units (abstract). Blasey teaches granulates consisting of all ingredients commonly contained in detergents and cleaning compositions, including builders, tensides, bleaching agents, bleach activators, enzymes, co-builders, foam inhibitors, and so on (description p.6, last paragraph). Blasey teaches shaped units can be produced in a predetermined three-dimensional shape as slabs or bars, cubes, cuboids or similar three dimensional structures (description p.12, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created a soap or detergent bar taught by Blasey using the enzyme granulates taught by Schmiedel in view of Markussen to arrive at a soap or detergent bar. Each of Blasey, Schmiedel and Nielsen teach compositions comprising protease enzymes. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that combining the enzyme particle formulation of Schmiedel in view of Markussen with the tablet forming technology of Blasey would predictably result in a soap or detergent bar comprising protease enzymes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that with respect to amended claim 1 and dependents thereof which contain the limitations of cancelled claim 4, the defects of Schmiedel are described in the response dated June 26, 2024; Nielsen and Beers fails to cure these defects (See Remarks dated 7/14/25, p.5 Section I. – p.6 – 2nd paragraph). Applicant argues that Schmiedel concerns enzyme granulates intended for end-use consumers and have much lower enzyme content in use in liquid detergents; the 5% w/w percent is unrealistically high for an end-user detergent and the enzyme granulates, not the finished detergent can have up to 5% w/w (See Remarks dated 7/14/25, p.6 last paragraph). Applicant argues that Schmiedel fails to disclose all of the claimed elements “arranged as in the claim”; defining granulates as a solid conditioned form with a plurality of ingredients, whereas amended claim 1 specifies the enzyme particles consist of enzyme crystals (See Remarks dated 7/14/25, p.6 last line – p.7 top paragraph). Applicant argues that new claim 23 requires that the enzyme slurry is not a detergent, and as described above, Schmiedel is directed towards end-use liquid detergents (See Remarks dated 7/14/25, p.7 2nd paragraph).
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. Schmiedel teaches a granulate composition comprising enzyme particles. Schmiedel teaches embodiments containing 3 to 30 wt% of the sensitive ingredient of the laundry detergent or cleaning composition [0155]. Schmiedel further teaches a water-soluble salt, particularly sodium sulfate; using 0.25% xanthan gum [0394], and up to 95 wt% [0338] water to produce an enzyme slurry composition. Markussen teaches enzyme crystals, and the use of an enzyme slurry comprising enzyme crystals in different applications including the food industry, starch industry, and as an additive to detergents. Nielsen is no longer relied upon in the rejection as discussed above.
Thus, the claims are rejected under 103 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA MISHRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 3:30pm EST.
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, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached on (571) 272-8037. 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.
/DEEPA MISHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657