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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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 claims 15-16 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 https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-36235/diss_final_Druck.pdf is withdrawn upon further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Boutique et al, Batchelor et al. and Just et al. are those teachings (which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure) that guides one of ordinary skill to substitute the claimed polymer for Boutique's PVAc-g-PEO graft copolymer because Batchelor confirms that PVP as an dye transfer inhibitors can be used in combination with PVAc-g-PEO graft copolymers (as taught by Boutique) in detergent formulations are known AND Just et al. teach the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG graft copolymer is commonly known.
Applicant’s further urge that Just does not disclose the use of PVP-PVAc-PEG in the detergent system of Boutique. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Because Boutique et al. do not explicitly teach the claimed poly(vinylpyrrolidone)-poly(vinyl actetate)-g-poly(ethylene glycol) with hydrolysis of the vinyl acetate groups between 1 and 20% that a combination rejection is made with prior art disclosing that a PVP modification to Boutique's exemplified PVAc-g-PEO graft copolymer as already suggested by Boutique et al. teach (col.7,ln.27) commonly known poly(vinylpyrrolidone) dye antideposition polymers as random graft copolymers with polyvinyl acetate grafted polyethylene oxide copolymers (see Batchelor et al. WO 2017/174251 page 7,ln.15-25 disclosing
PNG
media_image1.png
390
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
within 1 paragraph the same PVP modification as already suggested by Boutique et al. col.7,ln.27 in a similar detergent. And further Examiner has put forth the table on page 102 of Just et al. copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
226
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
disclosing the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer does not provide a contribution over the art of record because Boutique et al. teach PVP graft copolymers in laundry detergents in general.
Thus, while Boutique et al. exemplify a detergent with PVAc-g-PEO graft copolymer, it is still pertinent to the instant claims because they specifically suggest modification with PVP grafts and the art of record has established the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer is commonly known, and thus, cannot be hindsight reasoning, as Examiner has put forth references based on the claim limitations presented for examination.
Accordingly the claims are addressed below.
New Grounds of 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Evidence that claims 15 and 16 fail(s) to correspond in scope with the specification US20220056380A1 that the applicant regards as the invention can be found on page 1 [0008]. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, “enolase” of claim 15 is interpreted as ‘endolase’ as supported by Applicant’s specification [0008] and claim 16 which depends from claim 15.
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, 11-14, 18-22 and 24 are rejected 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 published 4/15/2015.
With respect to independent claim 1, Boutique et al. teach by example in col.12-14, formulation 7 a detergent composition comprising:
0.04% mannanase, (see formulation 7 in col.12)
2.5% xyloglucanase (see formulation 7 in col.12),
ethoxylated surfactants (formulation 7 in col.12 and col.6,ln.60-65)
Boutique 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 Boutique et al. col.7,ln.27 suggests a polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) graft to the exemplified PVAc-g-PEO guiding one of ordinary skill that poly(vinylpyrrolidone) dye antideposition polymers are preferentially present as random graft copolymers with a polyvinyl acetate grafted polyethylene oxide copolymer.
In the analogous art, Batchelor et al, page 7,ln.10-25 copied herein teach:
PNG
media_image3.png
478
824
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the same PVP modification as already suggested by Boutique et al. col.7,ln.27 in a similar laundry detergent. And the table on page 102 of Just et al. copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
226
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
disclose the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer does not provide a contribution over the art of record because Boutique et al. teach PVP graft copolymers in laundry detergents in general. An English language translation of Just et al. is not necessary to read the list of commonly known copolymers in the table on page 102.
Boutique et al. and Batchelor et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of PVP graft copolymers in laundry detergents. Just et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of PVP-PVac-PEG graft copolymers.
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 Boutique et al. with PVP-PVac-PEG as required by claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success because Boutique et al. suggest a PVP modification of the graft copolymer based detergent and Batchelor et al. (WO 2017/174251 page 7,ln.10-25) teach it is commonly understood the poly(vinylpyrrolidone) polymers are preferentially present as random graft copolymers with a polyvinyl acetate grafted polyethylene oxide in a similar laundry detergent and Just et al. teach the exact claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer is commonly known. Thus one of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Boutique et al. with the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer as disclosed by Just et al. because Boutique et al. and Batchelor et al. teach PVP graft copolymers in laundry detergents and Just et al. list the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG is a commonly known PVP graft copolymer that does not provide a contribution over the art made of record. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of all three references as they are in the analogous art of PVP graft copolymers in general.
Boutique et al. col.6,ln.57-65 teach the claim 5 mixture of surfactants.
Regarding claim 6, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.14 exemplify a hueing dye.
Regarding claim 7, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.12 exemplify citric acid builder.
Regarding claim 9, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.12 exemplify 0.3% graft copolymer (see formulation 7 in col.12 and as defined at the bottom of col.16 as 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, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.14 exemplify a structurant.
Boutique et al. col.7,ln.23-35 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, Boutique et al. teach by example in col.12-14, formulation 7 a detergent composition comprising PVAc-g-PEO graft copolymer with 0.04% mannanase, (see formulation 7 in col.12) and suggest a PVP modification in col.7,ln.27 as explained for claim 1 above.
Boutique et al. do not teach claim 14 limitation to PVP-PVac-PEG with hydrolysis of the vinyl acetate groups of less than 20%. Batchelor et al. and Just et al. are relied upon as applied 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 Boutique et al. with PVP-PVac-PEG as required by claim 14, with a reasonable expectation of success because Boutique et al. suggest a PVP modification of the graft copolymer based detergent and Batchelor et al. (WO 2017/174251 page 7,ln.10-25) teach it is commonly understood the poly(vinylpyrrolidone) polymers are preferentially present as random graft copolymers with a polyvinyl acetate grafted polyethylene oxide in a similar laundry detergent and Just et al. teach the exact claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer is commonly known. Therefore, one of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Boutique et al. with the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG copolymer as disclosed by Just et al. because Boutique et al. and Batchelor et al. teach PVP graft copolymers in laundry detergents and Just et al. list the claimed PVP-PVac-PEG is a commonly known PVP graft copolymer that does not provide a contribution over the art made of record. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of all three references as they are in the analogous art of PVP graft copolymers in general.
With respect to claims 15-16, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.12 exemplify 2.5% xyloglucanase enzyme and col.3,ln.7-30 teaches cellazyme C measuring endo beta glucanase activity. Boutique et al. guide one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of xyloglucanase to 0.9% in granular detergents (see for example formulation 20 in col.15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Boutique et al. with the claimed 0.01-1% endolase as required by claim 16 because the same is suggested by Boutique et al. formulation 20 in col.15 yielding and efficacious granular laundry detergent.
Boutique et al. col.6,ln.57-65 teach the claim 18 mixture of surfactants.
Regarding claim 19, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.14 exemplify a hueing dye.
Regarding claim 20, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.12 exemplify citric acid builder.
Regarding claim 21, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.14 exemplify a structurant
Regarding claim 22, Boutique et al. formulation 7 in col.12 exemplify 0.3% graft copolymer (see formulation 7 in col.12 and as defined at the bottom of col.16 as 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 Boutique et al. teaching that the action of certain glycosyl hydrolase on the fabric surface opens up the pore structure of the cotton fibres so as to increase the entrapment of the benefit agent containing particles in the fabric. In addition, the action of these certain glycosyl hydrolases increases the Surface area of the fabric, further improving the performance of the benefit agent during the laundering process. See col.1,ln.40-47 and formulation 7 to a laundry detergent example that contact and launder textiles.
Claims 15-16 are rejected 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 published 4/15/2015 as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-14, 18-22 and 24 above and further in view of Amin et al. US2014/0154782A1).
Boutique et al., Batchelor et al., and Just et al. are relied upon as set forth above, but do not teach the claimed endolase enzyme of claim 15-16. Examiner notes that the primary reference Boutique et al. teach detergents having xyloglucanase and cellulase with endo beta glucanase activity in general. See col.2-3.
In the analogous art of cleaning composition, Amin et al. (US2014/0154782 A1) 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. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using endolase cellulase in detergent compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed detergent composition comprising 0.1-1% endolase as required claims 15-16 because Boutique et al. already guide one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of B-glucanases in general and 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. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to combine Boutique et al with that of Amin et al. because they are in the analogous art of detergent compositions comprising enzymes.
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% sturcturant.
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
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