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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 and 14-19 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 10 are amended. Claims 1, 8 and 10 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s urge that the prior art made of record does not teach the claim amendment requiring pectate lyase. In response, Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) is relevant to the amended claims as presented for examination for its teaching one of ordinary skill the broad category of pectinase enzymes [0142], page 24,ln.39, which guides one of ordinary skill to the broad category of enzymes for breaking down pectin in general. Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
New Grounds of 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 14 and 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rudolph et al. (US 2015/0118165 A1) in view of Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) and Bjorkquist et al. (CN 1391606 A) Google Patents Translation pdf attached.
With respect to the preamble of claim 1 having a recitation to a detergent for removing pet odors and stains, Examiner points out that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02. In instant case, removing pet odors and stains does not impart a structurally distinguishable feature from the prior art laundry detergent comprising the same ingredients in similar proportions and thus does not distinguish the instant product from the prior art.
With respect to the material limitations of claim 1, Rudolph et al. teach a detergent page 2 [0030], line 4, the detergent comprising a surfactant selected from the claimed lauramine oxide [0324], and decyl glucoside [0307,0325-0336].
Rudolph et al. teach a glycerol oleate buffering agent on page 15, [0269].
Rudolph et al. teach a preservative, wherein the preservative comprises benzisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (see page 7 [0125] right col, line 3 and middle of right column and [0277]).
Rudolph et al. teach an odor absorber selected from the group consisting of one or more of: zinc ricinoleate [0227-0228], sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [0153], tetrahydroxypropyl ethylenediamine [0154], and beta-cyclodextrin on page 13, [0228].
Rudolph et al. teach a builder selected from silica (variant 14, [0324] and/or citric acid (variants 15-28, on page 24).
The claim 1 range of fragrance is met Rudolph et al. teaching 1% fragrance in their examples in general.
Rudolph et al. is silent as to the claim 1 limitation to 0.01-2% benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone. Also, Rudolph et al. do not teach specifically 0.1-10% enzyme comprising lipase protease, cellulase, mannanase, and pectate lyase, as is required by independent claim 1.
However, Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) a low-foaming, enzymatic liquid detergent (see page 14,[0081] comprising a C3-C6 polyol comprising glycerine and propylene glycol. See page 33, [0216]. And page 7, line 15 teaches up to 80%, alternatively about 50% of glycerides in general with about 6% by weight of propylene glycol. See page 9, ln.11.
Isothiazoline preservative is taught [0197] and [0223] and [0216] guiding one of ordinary skill to include 0-40% additives including the claimed isothiazolinone. Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) Table 6 on page 46 guide one of ordinary skill to include the claimed preservatives (ie benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone) in an amount of 0.06%wt (see also 0216, page 33). Examiner notes these are the same preservatives as taught in the detergent of Rudolph.
Bernhardt et al. [0228] and [0230] guide one of ordinary skill to including about 1-5% enzymes and [0271] teaches the same lipase, protease, cellulase and mannanase. See also page 24, [[0142] teaching the broad category of pectinase enzymes which is commonly understood in the art to include both the claimed pectate lyase and pectin lyase. See attached Google search notes explaining the common knowledge that Pectinase (General Term) is a group of enzymes that break down pectin, a complex polysaccharide in plant cell walls. And it includes Pectate Lyase, Pectin Lyase, Polygalacturonase, etc. See also Bjorkquist et al. page 10, 2nd paragraph from the top, teaching commonly known examples of pectinases as disclosed by Bernhardt et al. are pectinesterase, pectin lyase, pectate lyase, and endo- or exo-polygalacturonase.
Rudolph et al. and Bernhardt et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of isothiazoline based enzymatic laundry detergents. Bjorkquist et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches enzymes suitable for laundry detergents.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the detergent of Rudolph et al. with the claimed range of enzymes and isothiazolinone preservative because Bernhardt et al. suggest the claimed benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone preservative in an amount of 0.06%wt in a similar laundry detergent including about 1-5% enzymes and [0271] teaches the same lipase, protease, cellulase, pectinases, and mannanase with fragrance provides odor control in laundry inclusive of undergarments and garments, which would reasonably have the same types of bodily soils as pet soils. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to include the claimed pectate lyase because it is well established in the art that examples of pectinase category of enzymes explicitly taught by Bernhardt et al. [0124] is commonly known to include the claimed pectate lyase (see Bjorkquist et al. page 10, 2nd paragraph from the top) supporting Examiner’s position on common knowledge.
Regarding the surfactant of claim 2, Rudolph et al. teach the claimed lauramine oxide [0324], and decyl glucoside [0307,0325-0336].
Regarding the odor absorber of claim 5, Rudolph et al. teach an odor absorber selected from the group consisting of one or more of: zinc ricinoleate [0227-0228], sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [0153], tetrahydroxypropyl ethylenediamine [0154], and beta-cyclodextrin on page 13, [0228].
Regarding the enzyme of claim 6, Bernhardt et al. [0228] and [0230] guide one of ordinary skill to including about 1-5% enzymes and [0271] teaches the same enzymes of claim 6. It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the detergent of Rudolph et al. with the claimed enzymes because Bernhardt et al. suggest the claimed enzymes in a similar isothiazoline based enzymatic laundry detergent.
Regarding claim 7, Rudolph et al. teach capsules on page 12, [0222].
Regarding independent claim 10, Rudolph et al. teach a detergent page 2 [0030], line 4, the detergent comprising a surfactant selected from the claimed lauramine oxide [0324], and decyl glucoside [0307,0325-0336].
Rudolph et al. teach a glycerol oleate buffering agent on page 15, [0269].
Rudolph et al. teach a preservative, wherein the preservative comprises benzisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (see page 7 [0125] right col, line 3 and middle of right column and [0277]).
Rudolph et al. teach an odor absorber selected from the group consisting of one or more of: zinc ricinoleate [0227-0228], sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [0153], tetrahydroxypropyl ethylenediamine [0154], and beta-cyclodextrin on page 13, [0228].
Rudolph et al. teach a builder selected from silica (variant 14, [0324] and/or citric acid (variants 15-28, on page 24).
Rudolph et al. is silent as to the independent claim 10 limitation to 0.01-2% benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone. Also, Rudolph et al. do not teach specifically 0.1-10% enzyme comprising lipase protease, cellulase, mannanase, and pectate lyase, as is required by independent claim 10.
However, Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) and Bjorkquist et al. is relied upon for claim 10 as set forth above in claim 1. Thus, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the detergent of Rudolph et al. with the claimed range of enzymes and isothiazolinone preservative because Bernhardt et al. suggest the claimed benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone preservative in an amount of 0.06%wt in a similar laundry detergent including about 1-5% enzymes and [0271] teaches the same lipase, protease, cellulase, pectinases, and mannanase with fragrance provides odor control in laundry inclusive of undergarments and garments, which would reasonably have the same types of bodily soils as pet soils. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to include the claimed pectate lyase because it is well established in the art that examples of pectinase category of enzymes explicitly taught by Bernhardt et al. [0124] is commonly known to include the claimed pectate lyase (see Bjorkquist et al. page 10, 2nd paragraph from the top) supporting Examiner’s position on common knowledge.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Rudolph et al. teach a glycerol oleate buffering agent on page 15, [0269].
Regarding claim 19, Bernhardt et al. [0228] and [0230] guide one of ordinary skill to including about 1-5% enzymes and [0271] and [0142] teaches the same enzymes as claimed. It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the detergent of Rudolph et al. with the claimed enzymes because Bernhardt et al. suggest the claimed enzymes in a similar isothiazoline based enzymatic laundry detergent.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rudolph et al. (US 2015/0118165 A1), Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) and Bjorkquist et al. (CN 1391606 A) Google Patents Translation as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 14 and 16-17 and 19 above and further in view of Fry (US 20100083444 A1).
Rudolph, Bernhardt and Bjorkquist et al. are relied upon as set forth above for their teaching isothiazoline based enzymatic laundry detergents comprising the enzymes within the independent claim 8. Regarding independent claim 8, Rudolph et al. teach a detergent page 2 [0030], line 4, the detergent comprising a surfactant selected from the claimed lauramine oxide [0324], and decyl glucoside [0307,0325-0336].
Rudolph et al. teach a glycerol oleate buffering agent on page 15, [0269].
Rudolph et al. teach a preservative, wherein the preservative comprises benzisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (see page 7 [0125] right col, line 3 and middle of right column and [0277]).
Rudolph et al. teach an odor absorber selected from the group consisting of one or more of: zinc ricinoleate [0227-0228], sodium lauroyl sarcosinate [0153], tetrahydroxypropyl ethylenediamine [0154], and beta-cyclodextrin on page 13, [0228].
Rudolph et al. teach a builder selected from silica (variant 14, [0324] and/or citric acid (variants 15-28, on page 24).
Rudolph et al. is silent as to the independent claim 8 limitation to 0.01-2% benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone. Also, Rudolph et al. do not teach specifically 0.1-10% enzyme comprising lipase protease, cellulase, mannanase, and pectate lyase, as is required by independent claim 8.
However, Bernhardt et al. (EP 2 277 860 A1) and Bjorkquist et al. is relied upon for claim 8 as set forth above in claim 1. Thus, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the detergent of Rudolph et al. with the claimed range of enzymes and isothiazolinone preservative because Bernhardt et al. suggest the claimed benzisothiazolinone or methylisothiazolinone preservative in an amount of 0.06%wt in a similar laundry detergent including about 1-5% enzymes and [0271] teaches the same lipase, protease, cellulase, pectinases, and mannanase with fragrance provides odor control in laundry inclusive of undergarments and garments, which would reasonably have the same types of bodily soils as pet soils. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to include the claimed pectate lyase because it is well established in the art that examples of pectinase category of enzymes explicitly taught by Bernhardt et al. [0124] is commonly known to include the claimed pectate lyase (see Bjorkquist et al. page 10, 2nd paragraph from the top) supporting Examiner’s position on common knowledge
Neither of Rudolph, Bernhardt nor Bjorkquist et al. specifically teach the essential oil fragrances of claims 3-4 and independent claim 8.
In the analogous art, Fry (US 20100083444 A1) teaches fragrance lavender essential oils encompassing claims 3-4, and 8. See [0015] and [0045] teaching lavender essential oil included in a range from 0.1% to 0.3%. Specifically, Fry [0035], page 3, guides one of ordinary skill to encapsulate the detergent containing the fragrance so as to prevent evaporation of the fragrance agent in a detergent by for example, a fragrance agent may be encapsulated or embedded in compounds to protect and release the fragrance in a controlled manner during the washing and drying process. Such fragrance agents in these formulations evaporate at a slower rate and impart a pleasant odor to the washed textile fabrics. See page 3, [0035].
Rudolph, Bernhardt, Bjorkquist and Fry are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laundry detergents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detergent of Rudolph with the claimed amount of essential oil fragrance because Rudolph et al. teach a detergent with fragrance provides odor control in general and Fry establishes the state of the art, that the claimed essential oil fragrances in an amount within the claimed range including 0.1% to 0.3% are known to provide superior odor control and cleaning in detergents comprising the claimed range of preservative and enzymes.
While the teachings are silent as to the intended use of the detergent on pet stains, one of ordinary skill is apprised of the fact that bodily odors and stains from human undergarment laundry at least, would be similar to those of pet stains and thus would be similarly cleaned by the detergent comprising the same claimed components.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Rudolph et al. with Bernhardt, Bjorkquist et al. and Fry since all are in the analogous art of detergents.
Regarding claim 9, Rudolph et al. teach a builder selected from silica (variant 14, [0324] and/or citric acid (variants 15-28, on page 24).
Regarding claim 15, Rudolph et al. teach a glycerol oleate buffering agent on page 15, [0269].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761