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, 3-10, 12-22 are pending. Claims 1 and 20 are independent. No claim is amended in the response filed
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 maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s urge Miracle, does not disclose or make obvious 3 to 6 wt. % of a further enzyme that is not pectinolytic enzyme, as recited in claims 1 and 20. Specifically urging there is nothing in Miracle that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically select pectate lyase from the multitude of enzymes disclosed.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Miracle et al.’s Example 26 guides one of ordinary skill to a formulation where the enzyme may be a protease, amylase, mannanase, lipase, cellulase and/or pectate lyase and [0106] guides one of ordinary skill to an amount of about 2%. Further 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). Miracle et al. is combined with Billiauw et al. (CA2578284A1) specifically providing motivation that to incorporate 3-6% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes to improved consumer acceptance of high odor acceptance without over perfuming a liquid laundry detergent. See abstract and page 10.lines 1-5.
Applicant’s urge that Miracle teaches a sulfonic acid which is not a sulfonate as required by the claims. In response, Miracle et al. Example 1, includes 12 wt% linear sodium alkylbenezene sulfonate encompassing the claim 1a) from 9-15% of an anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of C8-18 alkyl benzene sulfonate. Accordingly the rejections are maintained 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 Billiauw et al. (CA2578284A1).
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.
The 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. It is the Examiner’s position that the 12 wt% LAS with sodium (𝑁𝑎+) monovalent cation reads upon claims 21-22.
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 (of claim 6) with a protease and lipase in conjunction with amylase in an amount of 0.4%-1.5%. This also meets the claims 5-6.
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). Examiner notes Example 1 formulation has greater than 20% water, however, there is sufficient motivation in [0212] to optimize the amount of water within the range of claims 1c, 7, 16-17 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 3 to 6 wt. % of a further enzyme not pectinolytic as required by 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 guiding one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of a further enzyme not pectinolytic.
Billiauw et al. (CA2578284A1) teach liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 3-6% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes provide improved consumer acceptance by accomplishing high odor acceptance without over perfuming. See abstract and pg.10, lines 1-5.
Miracle and Billiauw are both considered to be in the analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flowable laundry detergent.
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 1 limitation to 3-6% of a further enzyme not pectinolytic as claimed because Miracle et al. guide one of ordinary skill to about 2% of a plurality of enzymes in the analogous flowable detergent art, and Billiauw et al. teach liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 3-6% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes provide high odor acceptance without over perfuming. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Miracle et al. with that of Billiauw et al. to optimize the amount of enzymes to improve consumer acceptance of the laundry detergent comprising compatible ingredients in general.
Regarding the 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 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.
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; see [0268] exemplifies 13% C12-14 alkyl 7-ethoxylate, and [0179, last line] guides one of ordinary skill to about 25% nonionic surfactant.
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. As noted 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 guiding one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of a further enzyme not pectinolytic.
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 3.5% of a further enzyme not pectinolytic required by claim 20 because Miracle et al. guide one of ordinary skill to about 2% of a plurality of enzymes including a protease, amylase, mannanase, lipase, cellulase and/or pectate lyase in an analogous flowable detergent art, and Billiauw et al. teach liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 3-6% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes provides high odor acceptance without over perfuming.
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) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19-22 above, and further in view of Brooker et al. (US20150267155A1).
Regarding washing agent portion unit has a volume from 12 to 18 ml, Miracle et al. teaches a flowable washing agent preparation comprising anionic surfactant, pectinolytic enzyme, water, and nonionic surfactant and Billiauw et al. teach liquid laundry detergents compositions comprising 3-6% enzymes other than pectinolytic enzymes provides high odor acceptance without over perfuming as required by claims 1 and 20. Miracle and Billiauw et al. are relied upon as set forth above. Neither Miracle et al. nor Billiauw et al. teach the claim 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 the teachings of Brooker et al. (US20150267155A1) teach that 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, Billiauw, and Brooker since all are in the analogous art of unit dose cleaning with analogous detergents ingredients in general.
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
Prosecution Insights