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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites “composition comprising active components”. The limitation “active components” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what the structure of the active components is. It is not clear if the recited surfactant, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and lipase variant are the active components or other components are required to be present in the composition.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 which depend from claim 1 do not cure the deficiency of the claim and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (WO 2019/095089 A1, published 05/23/2019, of record in Office Correspondence mailed on 03/27/2026) in view of Brooker (EP3301147, published 04/2018, of record in IDS filed on 02/01/2022), as evidenced by Appendix A (Sequence alignment, of record in the Office Action mailed on 12/05/2024).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition comprising a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches that the composition comprises from about 50% to about 85% by weight sodium sulfate and about 10% by weight sodium carbonate (Gao claim 10, page 3 lines 32-33) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8). Gao teaches that the composition comprises an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (Abstract, page 3 line 9).
Gao does not teach that a lipase variant has a sequence identity of at least 95% but less than 100% to SEQ ID NO: 1 and comprises T231 and/or N233 modification.
However, Brooker teaches solid free flowing particulate laundry detergent (i.e., granular or powder) composition comprising: a surfactant, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and a lipase variant of the wild-type lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus which has an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 and comprises T231R and N233R mutations (Abstract, [0180], Brooker claim 1). Appendix A (see the appendix to the Office Action mailed on 12/05/2024) shows Brooker’s lipase is 99.3% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (page 1). Brooker teaches the lipase further comprises G91A or G225R mutations ([0069]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adding the lipase taught by Brooker into the composition taught by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to form a stable and effective laundry composition. Since Gao and Brooker are in the same field of endeavor and both teach a granular laundry detergent composition comprising a surfactant, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and a lipase, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches anionic surfactant is present in
an amount of about 10% by weight (page 3 line 8), nonionic surfactant is present in
an amount of about 3% by weight (page 3 line 13), and cationic surfactant from 0 wt.% (i.e. less than 1 wt.% of the active components) (page 23 second row).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, and 11 of US 11,725,197 in view of Gao and Brooker.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 8 recites a composition comprising the variant of claim 1. Claim 1 recites a variant of a parent lipase, wherein said variant has a) at least 90% but less than 100% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO:2, b) lipase activity, c) c) substitutions corresponding to G91A, N92D, and K98I in the region located from position G82 to position I100 of SEQ ID NO: 2; and substitutions corresponding to T231R and N233R of SEQ ID NO: 2. Patent claim 9 recites the composition further comprising a surfactant, wherein the composition comprises an anionic surfactant and/or wherein the composition comprises a nonionic surfactant. Patent claim 11 recites a method for cleaning a surface comprising the step of contacting said surface with the variant of claim 1. Patent claims 1, 8-9 and 11 do not recite the composition comprises a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate between 6:1 and 13:1 and that the lipase has a sequence identity of at least 95% to SEQ ID NO: 1.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8). Gao teaches the composition has an equilibrium pH of about 10 (page 2 line 9).
Brooker teaches a detergent composition comprising a lipase that has 99.3% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with substitutions corresponding to T231R and N233R, surfactant selected from anionic, non-ionic, cationic and zwitterionic surfactants, sodium carbonate and sodium sulfate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claims 1, 8-9 and 11 by adding sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate at a ratio of 7:1, at least one surfactant, and a lipase variant as suggested by Gao and Brooker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 17-18 of US 11,203,732 in view of Gao.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 17 recites a composition comprising a lipase variant of claim 1 and a surfactant. Claim 1 recites a variant of a parent lipase, which (a) comprises E1C, N233C and a substitution at each position corresponding to positions 27, 51, 96, 98, 111, 163, 198, 220, 231, and 256 of SEQ ID NO: 1; (b) has a sequence identity of at least 85% but less than 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; and (c) has lipase activity. Patent claim 10 recites the lipase variant comprising T231R. Patent claim 18 recites the composition further comprising at least one additional enzyme selected from the group consisting of amylase, cellulase, beta-glucanase, mannanase, and protease. Patent SEQ ID NO: 1 is 99.3% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1. Patent claims 1, 10 and 17-18 do not recite the composition comprises sodium carbonate and sodium sulfate and does not recite the surfactant is anionic and non-ionic.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8). Gao teaches the composition has an equilibrium pH of about 10 (page 2 line 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claims 1, 10 and 17-18 by adding sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate at a ratio of 7:1, and anionic and non-ionic surfactants, as suggested by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 10,119,128 in view of Gao.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 1 recites a lipase variant, comprising a substitution at a position corresponding to position G91A of the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, wherein the variant has at least 90% sequence identity to the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, has lipase activity wherein said lipase variant is selected from the group consisting of the substitutions T37R+N39R+G91A+D96G+ T231R+N233R. Patent claim 1 does not recite the composition comprises sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8). Gao teaches the composition has an equilibrium pH of about 10 (page 2 line 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claim 1 by adding the lipase, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes, and a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 7:1, as suggested by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6 of US 9,394,530 in view of Gao.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 1 recites a lipase variant, comprising a substitution G91Q corresponding to the position of the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, wherein the variant has at least 90% sequence identity to the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, and has lipase activity. Patent claim 3 recites the variant of claim 1, which has at least 97% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence of the parent lipase. Patent claim 6 recites wherein the substitution comprises one or more of D96G, T143A, A150G, E210Q, G225R, T231R, N233R and P250R. Patent claims 1, 3 and 6 do not recite the composition comprises sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claims 1, 3 and 6 by adding the lipase, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes, and a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 7:1 as suggested by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of US 10,927,356 in view of Gao.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 1 recites a lipase variant, comprising an amino acid substitution at one or more positions corresponding to positions T37A, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, N, P, Q, R, V, W, Y or N39A, C, D, E, G, I, K, L, M, P, Q, R, T, V, W, Y of amino acids 1 to 269 of SEQ ID NO: 2, wherein the variant has lipase activity, and wherein the variant has at least 92% sequence identity to amino acids 1 to 269 of SEQ ID NO: 2. Patent claim 4 recites the lipase variant of claim 1, wherein said variant is T37R+N39R+G91A+D96G+T231R+N233R. Patent claims 1 and 4 do not recite the composition comprises sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claims 1 and 4 by adding the lipase, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes, and a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 7:1, as suggested by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-12 of US 11,891,591 in view of Gao.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 10 recites a composition comprising a lipase variant of claim 1 and a surfactant. Patent claim 1 recites lipase variant of a parent lipase, which (a) comprises a substitution at each position corresponding to positions 1, 231, and 233 of SEQ ID NO: 1; (b) has a sequence identity of at least 85% but less than 5 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1; and ( c) has lipase activity. Patent claim 4 recites the lipase variant of claim 1, comprising N233C or N233R. Patent claim 5 recites the lipase variant of claim 1, comprising ElC+T231R+N233C. Patent claim 11 recites the composition further comprising at least one additional enzyme selected from the group consisting of amylase, cellulase, beta-glucanase, mamianase, and protease. Patent claim 12 recites a method of laundering, comprising laundering a fabric with a composition according to claim 1. Patent claim 7 recites the lipase variant of claim 1 wherein the variant has at least 98% sequence identity to amino acids 1 to 269 of SEQ ID NO: 2. Patent claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-12 do not recite the composition comprises sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and anionic surfactant.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-12 by adding sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes, and a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 7:1, as suggested by Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 6 of US 9,404,070 in view of Gao.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, patent claim 1 recites a method of cleaning a textile or hard surface or other surface in fabric and home care comprising the steps of: a) contacting the surface with an aqueous solution comprising (i) a lipase; and (ii) a bleach component and (iii) optional detergent adjunct; wherein the lipase comprises a lipase variant of a parent lipase, wherein the parent lipase comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 60% identity with the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:1; and the lipase variant comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 60% identity to the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein said lipase variant comprises the following substitutions: a. G91A+D96G+T231R+N233R, b. T37R+N39R+G91A+D96G+T231R+N233R; c. G91A+D96G+T231R+N233R+G225R; or d. G91A+D96G+A150G+T231R+N233R; corresponding to the positions of the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein said lipase variant has lipase activity. Patent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the variant further comprises a substitution at one or more positions corresponding to positions T143, A150, E210, G225, and P250 of the mature polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1. Patent claims 1 and 6 do not recite the composition comprises sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and anionic surfactant.
However, Gao teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (Abstract) comprising an anionic surfactant from about 15% to about 40% by weight of the composition (page 3 line 9). Gao teaches the detergent composition further comprises a nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, and zwitterionic surfactant (page 3 line 10, page 12 lines 3-4, page 12 line 8). Gao teaches the composition comprises 50% to 85% by weight sodium sulfate and 10% by weight sodium carbonate (claim 10) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1), a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition recited in patent claims 1 and 6 by adding sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, anionic surfactant, and enzymes, and a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 7:1, as suggested by Brooker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to produce an effective detergent composition capable of cleaning surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the term "active component" is repeatedly used throughout the specification, and that active components of detergent compositions are exemplified in the specification in the tables and examples.
In response to the argument, the claim requires active components, yet the structure of these active components is not defined. It is not clear if the recited components surfactant, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, and lipase variant are the active components or other components are required to be present in the composition. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that detergent compositions comprising a lipase are not tested by Gao but disclosed as further detergent components. Applicant argues that with 85% sodium sulfate and 10% sodium carbonate, then sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate constitute 95% of the composition which also requires 10% to 20% LAS in their claimed granular laundry detergent composition. Applicant argues that only Example 3 of Gao discloses laundry detergent compositions containing sodium carbonate content of 20%
and 9% and the compositions are undesirable.
In response to the argument, Gao teaches the composition comprises from about 50% to about 85% by weight sodium sulfate and about 10% by weight sodium carbonate (Gao claim 10, page 3 lines 32-33) (i.e., a ratio of sodium sulfate to sodium carbonate of 5:1 to 8.5:1). Gao teaches the composition comprises a lipase such as lipase from Thermomyces lanuginosus, and other enzymes such as an amylase, cellulase, and protease (Table in Example 4, page 15 line 8). MPEP2123 states that “the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain” and states “nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art”.
Applicant requests the withdrawal of the double patenting rejections because the pending claims are not obvious over Gao in view of Booker.
In response to the argument, the instant claims are obvious over Gao and Booker as discussed above. The NSDP rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-1661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 CT with alternate Fridays off.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/MARY A CRUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/THANE UNDERDAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights