DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Support for the amendments are within the instant application specification.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/14/2024 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 5/19/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-26 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 17 are cancelled.
Claims 10-13, 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 14-16, 23-26 are pending and examined on the merits.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/16/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claim 26 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim is withdrawn in view of claim 26 being dependent upon rejected claim 8.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 8, 14-16, 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by O’Connell et al. (EP 2832853A1, Date Published: 04.02.2015, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein O’Connell} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 11/19/2025) {herein Atlas} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks that conductivity is not taught by O’ Connell.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Basler et al. (WO 2011072099A2, Date Published: 2011-06-16, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein Basler} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 11/19/2025) {herein Atlas} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks that conductivity is not taught by Basler.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by Poulose et al. (CA2829859A1, Date Published: 2003-07-31, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein Poulose} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 11/19/2025) {herein Atlas} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks that conductivity is not taught by Poulose.
New 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.
Claim 1, 3-4, 8, 14-16, 23-26 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connell et al. (EP 2832853A1, Date Published: 04.02.2015, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein O’Connell} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 11/19/2025) {herein Atlas}. The new rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s remarks that O’Connell does not teach conductivity and to add claim 26 to the rejection.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 23-26 are drawn to a powder detergent composition comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm, wherein pH and conductivity is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C.
Claims 14-16 are drawn to a detergent composition comprising 5-100 g of a powder detergent comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm when 15g of the detergent is dissolved in 15 l of deionized water at 20°C.
With respect to claims 1, 4, O’Connell teaches a powder detergent composition comprising a protease variant with 99.6% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245 appendix A) and a protease variant (reference SEQ ID NO: 3) with 99.7% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245, appendix B). Said compositions contain builder substances, surface-active surfactants, water- miscible organic solvents, enzymes, sequestering agents, electrolytes, pH regulators, polymers with specific effects, such as soil release polymers, dye transfer inhibitors, graying inhibitors, crease-reducing polymeric active ingredients and shape-retaining polymeric active ingredients, and further auxiliary substances, such as optical brighteners, foam regulators, additional peroxy activators, colorants and scents (para 0248). Examiner is interpreting said compositions to include the detergent components taught by O’Connell as the instant application specification has defined said components to include surfactants, hydrotropes, builders, co-builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleaching system or bleach components, polymers, fabric hueing agents, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dispersants, dye transfer inhibitors, fluorescent whitening agents, perfume, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, soil release polymers, anti-redeposition agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, antioxidants, and solubilizers (Instant Application Specification: page 16, lines 7-13). The composition is stored at temperatures between 15C - 50C (para 0029). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art that the detergent composition taught by O’Connell would have a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm as it is well-known in the art that pH is positively correlated to conductivity. Supporting the Examiner’s position is table 2 of instant application specification which demonstrates a positive correlation between pH and conductivity. Further supporting the Examiners position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated (page 2, para 2). This is primarily because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (Atlas: page 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4) since O’Connell teaches the same protease and pH of the instant application claim 1. O’Connell further teaches the typical dosing ratio of the powder washing agent is 5.5 g/L per washing liquor (para 0245). Additionally, O’Connell teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occurred at a pH of 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH of 8-9. Furthermore, O’Connell teaches a protease detergent test solution of 4.66 g/L at a temperature of 20C to test the cleaning performance on a swatch (page 46, table 7). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 3, 23-25, O’Connell teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occur between a pH of 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9. Examiner is interpreting a pH of 8-9 as not being more than 9, as it encompasses a pH of 9.
With respect to claims 8, 26, O’Connell teaches a protease variant with 99.7% identify to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (appendix B). Said variant has a point mutation of F180Y (appendix B, para 0063, line 31).
With respect to claims 14, 16, O’Connell teaches 5.5g/l to 7g/l of powder detergent composition comprising a protease variant with 99.6% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245 appendix A) and a protease variant (reference SEQ ID NO: 3) with 99.7% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (abstract, para 0006, para 0245, appendix B). Said composition contains builder substances, surface-active surfactants, water- miscible organic solvents, enzymes, sequestering agents, electrolytes, pH regulators, polymers with specific effects, such as soil release polymers, dye transfer inhibitors, graying inhibitors, crease-reducing polymeric active ingredients and shape-retaining polymeric active ingredients, and further auxiliary substances, such as optical brighteners, foam regulators, additional peroxy activators, colorants and scents (para 0248). Examiner is interpreting said compositions to include the detergent components taught by O’Connell as the instant application specification has defined said components to include surfactants, hydrotropes, builders, co-builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleaching system or bleach components, polymers, fabric hueing agents, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dispersants, dye transfer inhibitors, fluorescent whitening agents, perfume, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, soil release polymers, anti-redeposition agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, antioxidants, and solubilizers (Instant Application Specification: page 16, lines 7-13). The composition is stored at temperatures between 15C to 50C (para 0029). O’Connell further teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occurs at a pH between 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claimed detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 14) and a conductivity not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 16). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that O’Connell would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 14) and a conductivity not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 16).
With respect to claim 15, O’Connell further teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-9 in deionized water (para 0245). Examiner is interpreting that since washing occurs at a pH between 8-9, then the composition itself would have a pH between 8-9.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 1 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that O’Connell is describing characteristics for a powdered detergent composition where it is provided that “[w]ashing preferably occurs in a pH range between pH 9 and pH 11 ” (emphasis added), not 8-9 as alleged by the examiner. Paragraph [0245] does not describe washing in a pH range between pH 8 and pH 9. While paragraph [0244] does describe a washing in a pH range of 8-9, that paragraph is referring to a liquid detergent composition. O’Connell does not expressly, nor inherently, describe a powdered detergent composition in washing conditions between pH8 to pH9, nor with a pH of not more than 9.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that O’Connell teaches washing occurs at a pH between 8-11 (para 0245), which fits within the claimed range of a pH of ‘from 7.0 to not more than 9.0; from 7.0 to 8.2; or from 7.8 to 8.8,’ (instant application claim 3).
Applicant contends that no conductivity is discussed in O’Connell. Applicant contends that O’Connell fails to describe a defined upper limit to conductivity (4.0mS/cm as recited in claim 1), fails to describe defined conditions for measurement of characteristics such as pH and conductivity (determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C as recited in claim 1) and fails to describe any data from which conductivity could be calculated.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed that the conductivity of the claimed powder detergent composition would be the same as the conductivity of the powder detergent composition taught by O’Connell since O’Connell teaches the limitations of: a powder detergent composition comprising a protease (SEQ ID NO: 1) and at least one detergent component. Furthermore, Applicant has not included any additional limitations to the detergent composition. As such, it remains the Examiner’s position that since the structure of the powder detergent recited in the instant application claims is the same as the structure of the recited composition, the composition taught by O’Connell would obviously have the same conductivity. Especially since the claimed pH is taught by O’ Connell.
Applicant contends that O’Connell is directed broadly to detergent compositions comprising protease variants and various optional detergent components. While O’Connell describes various composition ingredients, it never quantifies ionic content in a manner that would lead one of skill in the art to consider conductivity, nor to permit one of skill in the art to determine conductivity, much less ensure it falls below 4.0 mS/cm.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that the fact that O’ Connell never quantifies the ionic content does not negate the fact that O’Connell teaches the structure of the claimed powder detergent composition. Examiner welcomes Applicant to provide evidence that the powder detergent composition taught by O’Connell would not necessarily have the same conductivity of the claimed powder detergent composition.
Applicant contends that with respect to O’Connell itself, a wide variety of compositions and optional components are described which would not specifically lead one of skill in the art to select a particular composition as presently claimed. Indeed, many of the components described in O’Connell, such as electrolytes, builders, salts, etc. could directly affect conductivity of a resultant composition. Further, there is no disclosure in O’Connell that would constrain any such variables to a composition with a total conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm. Conductivity depends on ionic concentration, not simply composition type or elements thereof.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Applicant has not defined within the instant application claims detergent components that are different from what is taught by O’Connell. As such, Applicant has not established that the conductivity of the claimed powder detergent composition is different from the claimed powder detergent composition. Examiner welcomes Applicant to amend the instant application claims to further define the detergent components that would make the detergent composition different from the detergent composition taught by O’Connell.
Applicant contends that though Atlas is cited as an evidentiary reference, it is actually being used to supply a missing limitation of O’Connell. O’Connell fails to describe the recited conductivity limitation, Atlas is cited “to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated”. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 properly relies on a single reference, not a combination of references. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Atlas is improperly relied upon. Applicant contends that Applicants disagree that Atlas supports that pH and conductivity are necessarily positively correlated, as alleged by the examiner. While Atlas may make general statements about a possible correlation between pH and conductivity, it does not establish that any specific detergent composition of O’Connell necessarily has a conductivity ≤ 4.0 mS/cm under the claimed test conditions. Moreover, Atlas confirms that conductivity depends on ionic species and concentration, not on pH alone. Detergent compositions with similar pH values can therefore exhibit materially different conductivities due to builders, electrolytes, sequestrants, etc. Indeed, the opening sentence of Atlas states that “[t]he relationship between [electrical conductivity and pH] is complex…” the subsequent statement made in Atlas about a positive correlation is that there is generally a positive correlation, but that many factors can affect conductivity, such as ion concentration, temperature, pressure, impurities, and dissolved solids (Atlas, p. 3/16). Applicant contends that the reference further again states that “the relationship between electrical conductivity and pH is complex and can vary depending on specific solution and conditions” (Atlas, p. 5/16). Applicant contends that Atlas does not support a broad conclusion that pH and conductivity are positively correlated, but states that while pH and conductivity may be so correlated, that will depend on any number of additional considerations. It cannot be said that Atlas’ statements about a general (but not absolute) trend support a finding of necessarily present.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that according to MPEP 2131.01 “Normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. However, a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to: (A) Prove the primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.” Examiner contends that the evidentiary reference of Atlas was utilized to demonstrate the correlation between pH and conductivity. It was not utilized as a secondary reference to teach conductivity. It was used to demonstrate the relationship between pH and conductivity is well-known in the art. Examiner contends that Atlas is cited “to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated”. Examiner contends that Applicant has not defined specific detergent components to establish the conductivity of the claimed detergent composition would be different from the detergent composition taught by O’Connell.
Applicant contends the examiner’s attention is respectfully directed to Table 2 in the present application. It can be seen in this table that the relationship between pH and conductivity was not necessarily observed to increase linearly or in a predictable manner.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that based on Applicant’s table 2 within the instant application specification, the pH and conductivity are in fact proportional to one another. It can be observed that when the pH increases, conductivity increases as well.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basler et al. (WO 2011072099A2, Date Published: 2011-06-16, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein Basler} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 11/19/2025) {herein Atlas}. The new rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s remarks that Basler does not teach conductivity.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25 are drawn to a powder detergent composition comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm, wherein pH and conductivity is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 23-25, Basler teaches a cleaning composition in powder form (page 20, lines 18 through page 21 line 24) comprising a protease variant with 99.6% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with a point mutation of S99A (appendix C). Such detergent compositions may comprise at least one adjunct ingredient or carrier, at least one additional enzyme, at least one builder, and/or at least one surfactant and may be formulated or in a form appropriate to their use (page 22, lines 3-6). Basler further teaches the detergent may have a pH between 3-11 (page 79, line 22-23). Basler further teaches laundry detergent may be a detergent having a pH between 3 and 11 (e.g., between pH 4, pH 5, pH 6, pH 7, pH 7.5, pH 8, pH 9, pH 10, pH 10.5, etc.) (Basler: page 79, line 21-24). Examiner is interpreting the pH of 9 to be encompassed in the pH range of 3-11 taught by Basler. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art that the detergent composition taught by O’Connell would have a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm as it is well-known in the art that pH is positively correlated to conductivity. Supporting the Examiner’s position is table 2 is the evidentiary reference of instant application specification which demonstrates a positive correlation between pH and conductivity. Further supporting the Examiners position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated (page 2, para 2). This is primarily because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (Atlas: page 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Basler would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity of not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4) since Basler teaches the same protease and pH of claim 1. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 5 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that it remains Applicants' position that Applicant contends that Basler does not teach a liquid composition or formulation typically in a pH range of 3-9 and granular formulation with a typical pH from 9-11. Applicant contends that Basler does not teach conductivity.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Basler further teaches laundry detergent may be a detergent having a pH between 3 and 11 (e.g., between pH 4, pH 5, pH 6, pH 7, pH 7.5, pH 8, pH 9, pH 10, pH 10.5, etc.) (Basler: page 79, line 21-24). Examiner contends that Basler teaches Each cleaning adjunct material is typically selected depending on the particular type and form of cleaning composition (e.g., liquid, granule, powder, bar, paste, spray, tablet, gel, foam, or other composition) (page 19, lines 34-36).
Applicant contends that Basler describes detergent compositions that may include numerous additional components such as surfactants, builders, additives, and other formulation components.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that although Basler describes a detergent composition with numerous composition, Applicant broadly discloses a detergent composition with a ‘at least one detergent component’ (instant application claim 1, 14) of which encompasses the detergent compositions taught by Basler.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulose et al. (CA2829859A1, Date Published: 2003-07-31, cited on PTO-892 dated 6/4/2024) {herein Poulose} as evidenced by Atlas (2025, Atlas Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 11/19/2025) {herein Atlas}. The new rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s remarks that Poulose does not teach conductivity.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 are drawn to a powder detergent composition comprising a protease and at least one detergent component, wherein the protease is selected from the group consisting of: a) a variant of the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; b) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; and c) the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 3 or a variant thereof, wherein the variant has protease activity and at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90% or at least 95% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 and wherein the composition has a pH of not more than 9 and a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm, wherein pH and conductivity is determined in a 5 g/l solution of the composition in deionized water at 20°C.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 23-25 Poulose teaches powder detergents comprised of a variant protease polypeptide with 99.6% sequence identify to SEQ ID NO: 2 (appendix D, page 17, line 11) that can be formulated into having a pH between 6.5 and 12.0 (page 18, lines 13-14). Said protease variant has a point mutation of Y217L (page 15, line 11). The cleaning compositions may additionally contain additives which are commonly used in cleaning compositions (page 18, lines 25-26). These can be selected from, but not limited to, bleaches, surfactants, builders, enzymes and bleach catalysts (page 18, lines 26-27). Examiner is interpreting said compositions to include the detergent components taught by Poulose as the instant application specification has defined said components to include surfactants, hydrotropes, builders, co-builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleaching system or bleach components, polymers, fabric hueing agents, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dispersants, dye transfer inhibitors, fluorescent whitening agents, perfume, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, soil release polymers, anti-redeposition agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, antioxidants, and solubilizers (Instant Application Specification: page 16, lines 7-13). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the conductivity of applicants’ detergent with the conductivity of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the detergent of the prior art does not possess the same conductivity of the claim detergent). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.‘ It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art that the detergent composition taught by Poulose would have a conductivity of not more than 4.0 mS/cm as it is well-known in the art that pH is positively correlated to conductivity. Supporting the Examiner’s position is table 2 is the evidentiary reference of instant application specification which demonstrates a positive correlation between pH and conductivity. Further supporting the Examiners position is the evidentiary reference of Atlas which is cited to demonstrate that pH and conductivity are positively correlated (page 2, para 2). This is primarily because an increase in pH often leads to a rise in the concentration of ions, enhancing the solution’s ability to conduct electricity (Atlas: page 2, para 2). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Poulose would necessarily teach a conductivity below 4.0 mS/cm determined in a 5 g/l solution (claim 1) and a conductivity of not more than 3.9 mS/cm (claim 4) since Poulose teaches the same protease and pH of claim 1. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that it remains Applicants' position that Applicant contends that Applicant contends that Poulose still further fails to describe defined conditions for measurement of characteristics such as pH and conductivity. Poulose is directed broadly to detergent compositions comprising protease variants and various optional detergent components. While Poulose describes various composition ingredients, it never quantifies those ingredients in a manner that would lead one of skill in the art to consider conductivity, nor to permit one of skill in the art to determine conductivity.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that the instant application is directed broadly to detergent compositions comprising protease variants and various detergent components as Applicant has not defined the detergent components within the instant application claim language. Examiner contends that quantifying the conductivity does not provide limitations to overcome the rejection as Poulose teaches a pH between 6.5 and 12.0 (page 18, lines 13-14). Examiner maintains the it is well-known in the art that pH is positivity correlated with conductivity. Especially within the broach limitations of the powder detergent disclosed by Applicant within the instant application claim language.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-26 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 17 are cancelled.
Claims 10-13, 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claim 26 is objected to.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 14-16, 23-25 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Appendix A
O’Connell et al with alignment to SEQ ID NO: 1 (S99N)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1358; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 268; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGASGSGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPNAELYAVKVLGASGSGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
Appendix B
O’Connell et al. sequence alignment with SEQ ID NO: 3 (F180Y)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1600; Length 311;
Best Local Similarity 99.7%;
Matches 310; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AVPSTQTPWGIKSIYNDQSITKTTGGSGIKVAVLDTGVYTSHLDLAGSAEQCKDFTQSNP 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AVPSTQTPWGIKSIYNDQSITKTTGGSGIKVAVLDTGVYTSHLDLAGSAEQCKDFTQSNP 60
Qy 61 LVDGSCTDRQGHGTHVAGTVLAHGGSNGQGVYGVAPQAKLWAYKVLGDNGSGYSDDIAAA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LVDGSCTDRQGHGTHVAGTVLAHGGSNGQGVYGVAPQAKLWAYKVLGDNGSGYSDDIAAA 120
Qy 121 IRHVADEASRTGSKVVINMSLGSSAKDSLIASAVDYAYGKGVLIVAAAGNSGSGSNTIGF 180
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:
Db 121 IRHVADEASRTGSKVVINMSLGSSAKDSLIASAVDYAYGKGVLIVAAAGNSGSGSNTIGY 180
Qy 181 PGGLVNAVAVAALENVQQNGTYRVADFSSRGNPATAGDYIIQERDIEVSAPGASVESTWY 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 PGGLVNAVAVAALENVQQNGTYRVADFSSRGNPATAGDYIIQERDIEVSAPGASVESTWY 240
Qy 241 TGGYNTISGTSMATPHVAGLAAKIWSANTSLSHSQLRTELQNRAKVYDIKGGIGAGTGDD 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 TGGYNTISGTSMATPHVAGLAAKIWSANTSLSHSQLRTELQNRAKVYDIKGGIGAGTGDD 300
Qy 301 YASGFGYPRVK 311
|||||||||||
Db 301 YASGFGYPRVK 311
Appendix C
Basler et al. with alignment to SEQ ID NO: 1 (S99A)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1358; Length 269;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 268; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 AQSVPWGISRVQAPAAHNRGLTGSGVKVAVLDTGISTHPDLNIRGGASFVPGEPSTQDGN 60
Qy 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGASGSGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GHGTHVAGTIAALNNSIGVLGVAPSAELYAVKVLGASGAGSVSSIAQGLEWAGNNGMHVA 120
Qy 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 NLSLGSPSPSATLEQAVNSATSRGVLVVAASGNSGAGSISYPARYANAMAVGATDQNNNR 180
Qy 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ASFSQYGAGLDIVAPGVNVQSTYPGSTYASLNGTSMATPHVAGAAALVKQKNPSWSNVQI 240
Qy 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RNHLKNTATSLGSTNLYGSGLVNAEAATR 269
Appendix D
Poulose et al with alignment to SEQ ID NO: 2 (L126V)
Query Match 99.8%; Score 1388; Length 382;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 274; Conservative 1; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AQSVPYGVSQIKAPALHSQGYTGSNVKVAVIDSGIDSSHPDLKVAGGASMVPSETNPFQD 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 108 AQSVPYGVSQIKAPALHSQGYTGSNVKVAVIDSGIDSSHPDLKVAGGASMVPSETNPFQD 167
Qy 61 NNSHGTHVAGTVAALNNSIGVLGVAPSASLYAVKVLGADGSGQYSWIINGIEWAIA NNMD 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 168 NNSHGTHVAGTVAALNNSIGVLGVAPSASLYAVKVLGADGSGQYSWIINGIEWAIA NNMD 227
Qy 121 VINMSLGGPSGSAALKAAVDKAVASGVVVVAAAGNEGTSGSSSTVGYPGKYPSVIAVGAV 180
|||||:||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 228 VINMSVGGPSGSAALKAAVDKAVASGVVVVAAAGNEGTSGSSSTVGYPGKYPSVIAVGAV 287
Qy 181 DSSNQRASFSSVGPELDVMAPGVSIQSTLPGNKYGAYNGTSMASPHVAGAAALILSKHPN 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 288 DSSNQRASFSSVGPELDVMAPGVSIQSTLPGNKYGAYNGTSMASPHVAGAAALILSKHPN 347
Qy 241 WTNTQVRSSLENTTTKLGDSFYYGKGLINVQAAAQ 275
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 348 WTNTQVRSSLENTTTKLGDSFYYGKGLINVQAAAQ 382
Prosecution Insights