The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on April 17, 2026.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are pending. Claim 16 is currently amended.
Specification
The specification stands objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the original limitations in claim 17. It is suggested that the original limitations in claim 7 be incorporated into the appropriate portion of the specification.
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 14, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandzia et al. (US 2019/0078039), hereinafter “Kandzia” in view of Calderon (US 2020/0231907) and further in view of Souter et al. (US 2014/0342965), hereinafter “Souter.”
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 17, Kandzia teaches compositions and products for degrading malodors preferably with regard to the treatment of hard and/or soft surfaces, and more particularly relates to compositions and products for the degradation of malodors in the context of a textile treatment method (see paragraph [0002]). In an exemplary embodiment, a composition includes bacterial spores of at least one species of Bacillus (see paragraph [0007]). The bacterial spores can be used in combination with or as an ingredient of a washing product, such as detergents and/or fabric softeners in particular, including but not limited to aerosols, powders, solids, creams, etc., for use, e.g., in cleaning machines, cleaning processes and/or articles treated in cleaning machines or cleaning processes, such as, fabrics (see paragraph [0029]). Kandzia also teaches that the composition is adapted for delivery to a fabric by applications which include solid applications, as one of the selections, in combination with liquid detergents (see paragraph [0036]). One product form is a washing or cleaning agent for household applications and the agent includes a detergent, and the bacterial spores are present in the agent at a concentration of about 1x102-1x109 CFU/g of detergent (see paragraphs [0008] and [0057]). Kandzia, however, fails to disclose the liquid detergent comprising from about 0.05% to about 10% by weight of the composition, of Saccharomyces supernatant, and the solid composition comprising the bacterial spores in the form of a pastille or bead as recited in claim 14; and the liquid detergent comprising ionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant as recited in claim 16; and from about 5% to about 55% by weight of anionic surfactant and from about 5% to about 50% by weight of nonionic surfactant, and an adjunct ingredient like enzymes, among others, as recited in claim 17.
Calderon, an analogous art, teaches a laundry detergent composition which provides a benefit in the elimination, inhibition, and/or reduction of any malodor (see abstract), the composition comprising: an ionic detergent surfactant in an amount of about 5% to about 55% by weight of the overall laundry detergent composition; a non-ionic detergent surfactant in an amount of about 5% to about 50% by weight of the overall laundry detergent composition; saccharomyces ferment filtrate in an amount of about 0.05 to about 10% by weight, such as about 0.05% to about 2% by weight of the overall laundry detergent composition; and an additive comprising one or more of: additional enzymes, peroxy compounds, bleach activators, anti-redeposition agents, neutralizers, optical brighteners, foam inhibitors, chelators, bittering agents, dye transfer inhibitors, soil release agents, water softeners, electrolytes, pH regulators, anti-graying agents, anti-crease components, bleach agents, colorants, scents, processing aids, antimicrobial agents, and preservatives (see claim 11 and paragraph [0016]), and wherein the laundry detergent composition is in the form of a liquid (see claim 13 and paragraph [0014]).
It is known from Souter, an analogous art, that cleaning compositions in solid form may include powder or agglomerates such as beads (see paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the solid composition comprising the bacterial spores of Kandzia in the form of beads because beads are known solid forms as taught by Souter, and to have incorporated the above liquid composition of Calderon as the specific liquid detergent because Kandzia specifically desires the combination of the solid composition comprising the bacterial spores with a liquid detergent as disclosed in paragraph [0036]. In addition, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed April 17, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 14, 16 and 17 based upon Kandzia in view of Calderon and further in view of Souter as set forth in the last Office action because: the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 14. The showing of unexpected results is only true for the product formulation comprising 1.30 x 104 CFUs of bacterial spores and 935 ppm (0.0935 wt%) Saccharomyces supernatant, i.e. Product 4. As stated in the previous office action, independent claim 14 requires from about 0.05% to about 10% by weight of the cleaning composition, of Saccharomyces supernatant, and beads comprising from about 1x102 to about 1x109 CFU/g of bacterial spores. It is noted that Product 4 and Comparative Example Product 2 recite a generic “bacterial spores” and it is not shown in the declaration if only one or multiple species of a bacterial spores were tested, considering that there are numerous species of bacterial spores. It is also noted from MPEP 716.02(d): Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Also, MPEP 716.02(d)(II) states: To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range, In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). While Applicant stated that the in-range Product 4 is reasonably representative of the claimed range as a whole and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a “cliff failure” within the claimed range, that is, such a person would not forsee the unexpectedly superior performance observed for the tested in-range embodiments to disappear abruptly at another concentration that also falls within the recited claim limits (see items 18-20 in the 132 Declaration), these are conclusory statements not supported by factual evidence, see In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Kandzia in view of Calderon and further in view of Souter, Applicant argues Applicant has rebutted the Examiner’s obviousness arguments(s) by showing unexpected results in the specification that are further supported by the 35 U.S.C. § 132 Declaration dated April 16, 2026.
The Examiner has carefully considered the showing in the specification as well as the declaration dated April 16, 2026, however, the showing in both the specification and said declaration are not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 14. The showing at pages 28-29 of the specification in only true for Product 4 which is a liquid laundry detergent and beads containing 99.99% by weight of PEG and 0.01% by weight of Bacillus spores and Saccharomyces supernatant, i.e., 2360 ppm of laundry detergent, 5.5x106 CFUs of Bacillus spores and 1867 ppm of Saccharomyces supernatant in the wash cycle. The showing in the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed April 17, 2026 is only true for the product formulation comprising 1.30 x 104 CFUs of bacterial spores and 935 ppm (0.0935 wt%) Saccharomyces supernatant. Hence, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 14.
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights