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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-16, 18-22 and 24 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 17 and 23 are cancelled.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-14, 18-22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Boutique et al. (US 8,580,720 B2) in view of Batchelor et al. (WO2017/174251 A1) and Just et al. https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-36235/diss_final_Druck.pdf is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Boutique et al. (US 8,580,720 B2), Batchelor et al. (WO2017/174251 A1) and Just et al. https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-36235/diss_final_Druck.pdf and further in view of Amin et al. US2014/0154782A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-16, 18-22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Amin et al. US (2014/0154782A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants urge that Amin et al. do not teach grafting PVP to the Sokalan HP22 random graft copolymer and the 2 components are taught independent of one another. Contrary to Applicants arguments, Amin et al. [0415] copied herein: specifically motivates one of ordinary skill to modify the polyvinyl acetate grafted polyethylene oxide graft copolymer having a polyethylene oxide backbone and multiple polyvinyl acetate side chains (exemplified in Table A on page 94) with the polyvinyl pyrrolidone polymers. The molecular weight of the polyethylene oxide backbone is about 6000 and the weight ratio gf the polyethylene oxide to polyvinyl acetate is about 40 to 60 and no more than 1 grafting point per 50 ethylene oxide units,
PNG
media_image1.png
524
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
teaches the 0.0001% to about 10% PVP dye transfer inhibiting agents and [0341] explicitly teaches grafting the same Sokalan HP22 of applicants specification. See [0341] copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
598
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
specifically motivates one of ordinary skill to no more than 1 grafting point per 50 ethylene oxide units of the same Sokalan HP22 used by Applicants specification. Examiner maintains, Amin et al. guides one of ordinary skill to the claimed PVP modification of the same PVac-PEG polymer (namely Sokalan HP22) to prevent dye redeposition in laundry detergents. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained below.
Claim Rejections
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, 5-7, 9, 11-16, 18-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Amin et al. US (2014/0154782A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Amin et al. a detergent composition comprising:
0.001%-2% mannanase, [0303]
0.0003%-0.1% xyloglucanase, [0264],[0270]
And ethoxylated surfactants. [0398]
Amin et al. do not teach claim 1 limitation to PVP-PVac-PEG with hydrolysis of the vinyl acetate groups of less than 20%.
Examiner notes that Amin et al. [0341] teaches the same Sokalan HP22 random graft copolymer and suggests a polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) graft [0415].
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s specification [0104] that the claim 1 copolymer is Sokalan HP22.
Amin et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of PVP graft copolymers in 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 random graft copolymer of Amin et al. with PVP-PVac-PEG as required by claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success because Amin et al. suggest a PVP modification of the PVac-PEG Sokalan HP22 graft copolymer based detergent. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Amin et al. with the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer because the modification with a PVP dye transfer inhibiting agent is disclosed [0415].
Amin et al. [0395-0409] teach the claim 5 mixture of surfactants.
Regarding claim 6, Amin et al. [0464] suggest a hueing dye in the last line and exemplify its use in formulations 1-4 in table A.
Regarding claim 7, Amin et al. table A exemplify citric acid builder.
Regarding claim 9, Amin et al. line under Table A teach 0.23-0.6% Stainzyme and/or Mannaway 1Random graft copolymer is a polyvinyl acetate (PVA) grafted polyethylene oxide (PEO) copolymer having a PEO backbone and multiple (PVA) side chains. The molecular weight of the PEO backbone is about 6000 and the weight ratio of the PEO to PVA is about 40 to 60 and no more than 1 grafting point per 50 ethylene oxide units).
Regarding claim 11, Amin et al. [0434] teach 0.01-5 wt% structurant.
Amin et al. [0415] guide one of ordinary skill to include one or more dye transfer inhibiting agents including the claim 12-13 polyvinylpyrrolidone polymers, polyamine N-oxide polymers, copolymers of N-vinylpyrrolidone and N-vinylimidazole, polyvinyloxazolidones and polyvinylimidazoles at levels from about 0.0001% to about 10% by weight of the cleaning compositions.
With respect to independent claim 14, Amin et al. teach a detergent composition comprising the same Sokalan HP22 random graft copolymer of the instant specification [0104] and suggests a polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) graft [0415] with 0.001%-2% mannanase, [0303]
Amin et al. do not teach claim 14 limitation to PVP-PVac-PEG with hydrolysis of the vinyl acetate groups of less than 20%. However Amin et al. teach the same Sokalan HP22 graft copolymer and suggest a PVP modification in [0415] as explained for claim 1 above.
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 random graft copolymer of Amin et al. with PVP-PVac-PEG as required by claim 14, with a reasonable expectation of success because Amin et al. suggest a PVP modification of the graft copolymer based detergent.
With respect to claims 15-16, Amin et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the commonly known enzyme cocktail mixtures including both xyloglucanase and endolase is known for effective cleaning. Amin et al. teach it is commonly known to formulate a typical enzyme cocktail mixture of enzymes beneficially including the cellulase, B-glucanases, and endoglucanases. See [0354] page 82 and page 83 [0373-0374] of commonly known enzyme cocktail blends for laundry washing machines. [0457].
Amin et al. [0395-0409] teach the claim 18 mixture of surfactants.
Regarding claim 19, Amin et al. [0464] suggest a hueing dye in the last line and exemplify its use in formulations 1-4 in table A.
Regarding claim 20, Amin et al. table A exemplify citric acid builder.
Regarding claim 21, Amin et al. [0434] teach 0.01-5 wt% sturcturant.
Regarding claim 22, Amin et al. line under Table A teach 0.23-0.6% Stainzyme and/or Mannaway 1Random graft copolymer is a polyvinyl acetate (PVA) grafted polyethylene oxide (PEO) copolymer having a PEO backbone and multiple (PVA) side chains. The molecular weight of the PEO backbone is about 6000 and the weight ratio of the PEO to PVA is about 40 to 60 and no more than 1 grafting point per 50 ethylene oxide units).
Claim 24 method step of contacting a fabric is taught by Amin et al. [0465] teaching contact and laundering of textiles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
