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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-22 are pending. Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claims 1 and 20 are amended 4/28/2026 with support found in at least [0027-0028] of the instant specification US20220348842A1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. US (20150203796A1) in view of Billiauw et al. (CA2578284A1) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. US (20150203796A1) and Billiauw et al. (CA2578284A1) and further in view of Brooker et al. (US20150267155A1) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s urge that Miracle et al. do not teach the about 24% C12-18 fatty acid ethoxylate. In response, Applicant’s arguments are not on point with respect to independent claim 1 which requires from 15-34 wt % nonionic surfactant. Miracle et al. example 26 on page 27 teach 13-20% Nonionic Marlipal which teaching reads upon claim 1d. The attached search notes establishes one of ordinary skill understands that the Miracle et al. disclosure of Nonionic Marlipal C24EO7 (is based on a C12-C14 fatty alcohol with ethylene oxide) See page 4 of the attached search notes Marlipal pdf available at US_Surfactants Nonionic_MARLIPAL 24 – C12-C14 fatty alcohol ethoxylates (3).pdf
PNG
media_image1.png
488
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also Miracle et al. [0147] guiding one of ordinary skill to the claim 20 C12-C18 alkyl ethoxylates. Thus, Miracle et al. is pertinent to the claims presented for examination and upon an updated search of the amended claims, a new grounds of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 20150203796A1) in view of Hede et al. (US 2017/0175043 A1).
Miracle et al. US (20150203796A1) teach a laundry detergent composition comprising the same ingredients and in similar amounts and thus guide one of ordinary to the claimed flowable detergent.
Independent claim 1a) limitation from 9-15% of an anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of C8-18 alkyl benzene sulfonate is met by Miracle et al. Example 1, teaching 12 wt% linear sodium alkylbenezene sulfonate teaching the detergent in example 1 has 12 wt% LAS with sodium (𝑁𝑎+) monovalent cation.
The claim 1b limitation to 0.05- 2 wt.% of pectinolytic enzyme is suggested in [0106] and example 26, page 27, teaching pectinase or pectate lyase with a protease and lipase in conjunction with amylase in an amount of 0.4%-1.5%.
The claim 1c limitation to less than 20% water is met by Miracle et al. [0212] teaching when in the form of a liquid, the detergents may be aqueous (typically about 2 wt% or even above 5 or 10 wt% total water). There is sufficient motivation in [0212] to optimize the amount of water within the range of claims 1c to formulate a liquid flowable composition.
The claim 1d limitation to 15-34 wt.% of a non-ionic surfactant is met by example 26 on page 27 teaching 13-20% nonionic surfactant.
Miracle et al. do not explicitly teach claim 1e limitation to 3 to 6 wt. % of a further enzyme preparation comprising at least three enzymes that are not pectinolytic as required by the claim 1. Examiner notes Miracle et al. example 26 is a formulation where the enzyme may be a protease, amylase, mannanase, lipase, cellulase and/or pectate lyase which disclosure guides one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of further enzymes not pectinolytic in general.
In the analogous art, Hede et al. teach liquid detergent compositions comprising 5-15% LAS anionic surfactant (pg.11 [0211]), 0.1-0.5% pectate lyase (pg.19 [0321], 10% water (pg.16 [0252]), 0.2-40% nonionic surfactant (page11[0213] and Hede et al. teach on page 17, [0266] a multi enzyme composition comprising each of the enzyme preparations in claim 1, namely pectate lyase with protease, amylase, lipase, mannanase, and cellulase. See page 17 [0266]. And on page 19, [0316—0323] formulation 31 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
372
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The concentration of 3-6% of enzymes different from pectinolytic enzymes as required by claim 1e is met by Hede et al. teaching from 1.9-5.8 of enzymes other than pectate lyase is commonly used in a liquid detergent formulation 31 on page 19 [0316-0323].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Miracle et al. with the claim 1e limitation to 3-6% of a further enzyme not pectinolytic as claimed because Miracle et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a plurality of enzymes in the analogous flowable detergent art in general, and Hede et al. teach liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 1.9-5.8% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes is commonly known to be added to in similar liquid formulations.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Miracle et al. with that of Hede et al. as they are both in the same field of flowable laundry detergents and both guide one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of enzymes to improve consumer acceptance of the laundry detergent comprising commonly compatible ingredients in general. See Hede et al. pag.2[0031] and Miracle et al. page 27,example 26.
With respect to independent claim 20, Miracle et al. teach a flowable washing agent preparation comprising claim 20a) limitation to about 12 wt.% of an anionic C8-18 alkylbenzene sulfonate surfactant; (see example 1). Claim 20 b) limitation to about 0.3 wt.% of a pectinolytic lyase preparation is suggested in Miracle et al. [0106]. Claim 20 c) limitation to about 10 wt.% water; is met by [0212] teach above 2% to above 10% water.
Claim 20 d) limitation to about 24 wt.% of C12-18 fatty acid ethoxylate; is not met by Miracle et al. Examiner notes Example 26 on page 27 illustrates 13-20% Nonionic Marlipal which is based on a C12-C14 fatty alcohol ethoxylate and [0147] teaches one of ordinary skill to the claim 20 C12-C18 alkyl ethoxylates in general but Miracle et al. do not disclose the 24% required by claim 20 d.
Also, Miracle et al. do not explicitly teach claim 20e) limitation to about 3.5 wt. % of a further enzyme preparation that is different from the preparation of a pectinolytic enzyme and having the percentages as required by the amended claim 20. As explained above, Miracle et al.’s Example 26 is a formulation where the enzyme may be a protease, amylase, mannanase, lipase, cellulase and/or pectate lyase generally guiding one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of a further enzyme not pectinolytic.
In the analogous art, Hede et al. teach liquid detergent compositions comprising 5-15% LAS anionic surfactant (pg.11 [0211]), 0.1-0.5% pectate lyase (pg.19 [0321], 10% water (pg.16 [0252]), 0.2-40% nonionic surfactant (page11[0213] and Hede et al. teach on page 17, [0266] a multi enzyme composition comprising each of the enzyme preparations in claim 20e, namely pectate lyase with protease, amylase, lipase, mannanase, and cellulase. See page 17 [0266]. And on page 19, [0316—0323] formulation 31 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
372
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the percentages in Hede et al. fall within and/or overlap with the claim 20e. The claim 20e limitation to about 3.5% of enzymes different from pectinolytic enzymes is met by Hede et al. teaching from 1.9-5.8 of enzymes other than pectate lyase is commonly used in a liquid detergent formulation 31 on page 19 [0316-0323].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Miracle et al. with the claim 20e limitation to about 3.5% of a further enzyme not pectinolytic as claimed because Hede et al. teach liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 1.9-5.8% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes is commonly known to be added in similar liquid formulations.
Also it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Miracle et al. with the claim 20d limitation to about 24% C12-18 fatty acid ethoxylate because Miracle et al. [0147] guide one of ordinary skill to C12-C18 alkyl ethoxylates in a range of 13-20% in general and , Hede et al. teach a similar liquid detergent compositions comprising 0.2-40% nonionic surfactant (page11[0213]) is commonly known range to include in similar liquid laundry detergents.
Claims 3-4, 12-15 limitation to comprising less than 10wt% of an additional anionic surfactant is met by Miracle et al. because the claim language encompasses 0 wt% of an alkyl ether sulfate surfactant.
Regarding claims 5-6, limitation from 0.1 to 0.4wt% of the pectinolytic enzyme preparation is suggested by Miracle [0106] and example 26, page 27, teaching pectinase or pectate lyase with a protease and lipase in conjunction with amylase in an amount of 0.4%-1.5%.
Claim 7 limitation to less than 15% water and claims 16-17 limitation to 2-12% water is met by Miracle et al. [0212] teaching when in the form of a liquid, the detergents may be aqueous (typically about 2 wt% or even above 5 or 10 wt% total water). There is sufficient motivation in [0212] to optimize the amount of water within the range of claims 7,16-17 to formulate a liquid flowable composition.
Regarding the washing unit portion unit of claim 8, see example 26, teaching polyvinyl alcohol film which Examiner notes is the same water soluble film of the instant specification [0070] and [0216] describe their liquid can be held in a water-soluble film in a pouch or pod encompassing the washing unit portion of claim 8.
Regarding the method for cleaning in claims 10 and 19, Miracle et al. teach their detergent composition used in automatic laundry machines where the suds do not overflow the washing machine. See [0203] and [0250] teaching an effective amount of composition is added to water, for example in a conventional fabric automatic washing machine, to form an aqueous laundering solution. The aqueous washing solution so formed is then contacted, typically under agitation.
With respect to claims 21-22 Miracle et al. Example 1, teach 12 wt% linear sodium alkylbenezene sulfonate. It is the Examiners position that the detergent in example 1 has 12 wt% LAS with sodium (𝑁𝑎+) monovalent cation reads upon claims 21-22.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. US (20150203796A1) and Hede et al. (US 2017/0175043 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-22 above, and further in view of Brooker et al. (US20150267155A1).
Miracle and Hede et al. are relied upon as set forth above for teaching a flowable washing agent preparation comprising anionic surfactant, pectinolytic enzyme, water, and nonionic surfactant in similar liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 1.9-5.8% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes are commonly known enzymatic detergent formulations as required by claims 1 and 20. However, neither Miracle et al. nor Hede et al. teach the claims 9 and 18 limitation to wherein the washing agent portion unit has a volume from 12 to 18 ml.
Brooker et al. is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a flowable detergent, and specifically teaches that it is commonly known to include a 10 - 20 ml volume of the liquid laundry detergent composition within the water-soluble unit dose. See claim 1.
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 washing agent portion unit having a volume from 12 to 18 ml as required by claims 9 and 18, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Brooker et al. teach it is commonly known to include between about 10 and about 20 ml. volume of the liquid laundry detergent composition within a water-soluble unit dose in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Miracle, Hede and Brooker since all are in the analogous art of unit dose cleaning with analogous detergents ingredients in general.
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
Prosecution Insights