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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2019/083304 filed 12/02/2019. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on EP 18209710.5 filed 12/03/2018; EP 19192257.4 filed 08/19/2019; EP 18209714.7 filed 12/03/2018 and EP 18209711.3 filed 12/03/2018. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13, 15 and 16 (claim set as filed 12/18/2025) are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 as filed 12/18/2025 are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawal of Rejections
The response and amendment filed on 12/18/2025 are acknowledged. All of the amendment and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered.
For the purposes of clarity of the record, the reasons for the Examiner's withdrawal and/or maintaining if applicable, of the substantive or essential claim rejections are detailed directly below and/or in the Examiner's response to arguments section.
New Rejections
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 1-13 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.
The term “superior” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “superior” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what performance parameters are necessary to consider for superiority and what is the extent at which those parameters are considered superior. The scope and boundaries of claim 1 are not certain making claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 2-13, dependent on claim 1, do not resolve the issue mentioned above and are rejected.
Maintained/Modified Rejections
The following rejections are maintained and/or modified taking into consideration amendment of claims filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen (WO 2016203064 A2).
Regarding claims 1-3, Andersen teaches detergent compositions comprising alpha amylases or variants thereof and protease variants (Abstract). Andersen mentions that the detergent composition can be in the form of regular or compact powder (p. 91, line 30). Andersen describes variants of alpha-amylase with SEQ ID NO: 14. The SEQ ID NO: 14 of Andersen teaching has 100% sequence identity to claimed SEQ ID NO: 19. One of the variants of alpha-amylase with SEQ ID NO: 14 in Andersen teaching is variant: H1*+ N54S+ V56T+ K72R+ G109A+ F113Q+ R116Q+ W167F+ Q172G+ A174S+ G182*+ D183*+ G184T+ N195F+ V206L+ K391A+ P473R+ G476K corresponding to claimed alpha-amylase variant. The variant has at least 96% but less than 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 14 (p. 18, lines 8, 9, 23-25). Thus, alpha-amylase variant of Andersen teaching covers claims 1 and 3 sequence limitations.
Andersen mentions that the detergent composition solution has preferable pH about 5.5-11.5 and describes that washing can be conducted at different pH ranges including range from 7.0 to 10.0 (p. 97, line 18, 29-30) covering pH range of 7.5 to 9.0 of claim 1 and 8.0 to 9.0 of claim 2. Regarding the “wherein pH is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20° C” clause, this is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Andersen teaches the pH of the composition including claimed pH range of pH of 7.5 to 9.0, the art teaches the same structure as claimed and therefore how the pH is determined does not impart a structural limitation. See MPEP 2113.
Andersen provides working examples of application of the same variant of alpha-amylase with SEQ ID NO: 14 with 18 amino acid substitutions (that has 96.5% identity to claimed SEQ ID NO: 19) in manual dishwash in Examples 2-4 (p. 112, lines 23-26) and demonstrates increased cleaning effect of compositions comprising the alpha-amylase variant in Tables 11-14 (p. 114-116) compared to detergent composition without alpha-amylase. That reads on new limitation of claim 1 of superior wash performance of the detergent composition with instant alpha-amylase compared to detergent composition not comprising instant alpha-amylase. Besides, pursuant MPEP 2112.01: “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” In instant case, Andersen teaches the detergent composition of the same structure and claimed pH range and hence the composition will necessarily have the same functional properties of superior wash performance compared to composition not comprising instant alpha-amylase or composition with pH value above 9.0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look at the guidance provided by Andersen and use alpha-amylase variant from Andersen teaching having recited mutations with at least 96% sequence identity but less than 100% sequence identity to claimed SEQ ID NO: 19 in powder detergent compositions having pH in the range of 7.5 to 9.0. One would have been motivated to do so since Andersen provides detailed description of detergent compositions including alpha-amylase variant and teaches increased cleaning efficiency of compositions comprising alpha-amylase variant with 18 mutations and at least 96% sequence identity to claimed SEQ ID NO: 19. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in preparation of a powder detergent composition following the description of the prior art. Thus, Andersen teaching renders claims 1-3 obvious.
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 7-9, Andersen teaches detergent compositions to comprise additional detergent components, such as surfactants, polymers, hydrotropes, builders and/or bleaching system (p. 79, lines 34-35, p. 80, lines 1-3). Andersen describes that surfactants can be anionic and non-ionic (p. 81, line 32) and that reads on claims 4, 5 and 7 limitations. Among anionic surfactants Andersen discloses linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (LAS) (p. 82, line 7) and among nonionic - alcohol ethoxylate (AEO or AE) (p. 82, line 26), corresponding to claims 8 and 9 limitations. Thus, Andersen teaching renders claims 4, 5 and 7-9 obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Andersen teaches inclusion of detergent builders in the detergent composition: “Non- limiting examples of builders include zeolites, diphosphates (pyrophosphates), triphosphates such as sodium triphosphate (STP or STPP), carbonates such as sodium carbonate, soluble silicates such as sodium metasilicate, layered silicates” (p. 86, lines 20-22), corresponding to claim 6 limitations. Thus, Andersen teaching renders claim 6 obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Andersen teaches incorporation of additional enzymes in the detergent composition, including protease that corresponds to claim 10 limitation: “The detergent composition according to the invention may comprise one or more additional enzymes such as carbohydrate-active enzymes like carbohydrase, pectinase, mannanase, amylase, cellulase, arabinase, galactanase, xylanase, or protease, lipase, a, cutinase, oxidase, e.g., a laccase, and/or peroxidase.” (p. 68, lines 1-4). Thus, Andersen teaching renders claim 10 obvious.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Andersen teaches the alpha-amylase variants of the invention to be used in laundry or a dish wash compositions including powder dishwash compositions: “… the detergent composition according to the present invention, is a liquid laundry detergent composition, a powder laundry detergent composition, a liquid dishwash detergent composition, or a powder dishwash detergent composition” (p. 91, lines 32-34). Thus, Andersen teaching renders claims 11 and 12 obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Andersen teaches that the detergent composition can be formulated in different forms, including unit dosage forms such as tablets and pouches (p. 91, line 30 and p. 92, lines 16, 34-35). Andersen describes that the detergent components can be physically separated in different compartments of pouches or layers of tablet to prevent negative interaction between components (p. 92, lines 34-35, p. 93, lines 1-2). Thus, Andersen teaching renders claim 13 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (addressing p. 5-6 of the Remarks) that alpha-amylase of claim 1 was surprisingly and unexpectedly shown to have superior wash performance in low pH powder laundry detergents at both 20°C and 40°C compared to other amylases (see Tables 3 and 4). The superior functionality of Amylase 4 in low pH powder detergents is not predictable and is only taught and demonstrated in the present specification, and the presently claimed powder detergent composition, with a pH of 7.5 to 9.0, is based on these unexpected and non-obvious findings. Andersen does not teach, anticipate, or make obvious the claimed low pH powder detergent composition.” , these arguments are not persuasive because:
Andersen teaches the claimed composition comprising the claimed variant of alpha-amylase as described in the rejection above and demonstrates activity of the claimed variant in manual dishwash when used alone or in combination with a protease (p. 114-116, Tables 11-14). MPEP 2145 states: “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In instant case, although Andersen does not expressly teach comparison of the activity of variant alpha-amylase with other amylases, Andersen teaches the same alpha-amylase variant as the claimed variant and the same pH range for application of the composition (p. 18, lines 8, 9; p. 97, lines 29-30). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect alpha-amylase variant of Andersen teaching to have the same washing performance as the claimed variant.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant has shown unexpected data, claims are not commensurate in scope with the unexpected results. MPEP 716.02: “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In instant case, results presented in Tables 3 and 4 of the specification are based on a very specific formulations of laundry powder detergents including components of the composition such as sodium-LAS, sodium lauryl sulfate, zeolite and others and concentrations of these components. Additionally, the new limitation of claim 1 requires superior wash performance of detergent composition comprising instant alpha-amylase compared to detergent composition not comprising instant alpha-amylase and is silent on presence of other amylases. The components of the composition, their concentrations and superior performance of alpha-amylase variant in comparison with other amylases are not present in the claim 1 which requires the polypeptide to have alpha-amylase activity and detergent composition to have superior wash performance compared to composition without instant alpha-amylase or composition with a pH value above 9.0 and hence the claims are not commensurate in scope with the unexpected results.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/L.G.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights