DEOXYRIBONUCLEASE USES IN DETERGENT COMPOSITION

§103 §112 §DOUBLEPATENT

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 Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed 9/11/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants amended claims to now require any polypeptide having DNase activity and added polypeptide having cellulase activity having SED ID 10-13 or a polypeptide having at least 80% sequence identity thereto. Ostergaard (WO 2017/064269) discloses SEQ ID 1 and lack newly added SEQ ID 10-13. Johansen (US 2011/0201082) discloses SEQ ID 11 but does not teach DNase polypeptide. Consequently, the prior art of record does not teach combination of the two polypeptides. As such applicant’s arguments are considered moot. With respect to teachings of Gori, applicants argued that Gori does not teach cellulase enzyme which statement is incorrect. Another reference was utilized because cellulase component had a specific SEQ ID. Gori teaches DNase polypeptide and a detergent composition which indicates use of cellulase (p. 3, starting line 36 and p. 4, l. 8). Specifically, the composition comprises at least one DNase compound and active detergent enzyme (cellulase) Cellulases are defined on p. 20. See also item 53 on page 40, where the composition is limited to polypeptide, surfactant, detergent builder and enzyme (item 49). Consequently, Gori teaches combination of DNase and cellulase polypeptides. With respect to Johansen, the applicants compared wrong SEQ IDs. Johansen teaches SEQ 1 which is 100% match to instant SEQ ID 11. Not SEQ ID2. In any event this reference is withdrawn due to lack of SEQ ID 1-9 as claimed. With respect to Johansen not utilizing term DNase, applicants claims under broadest reasonable interpretation do not require such. Applicants claims enable for use of any peptide as long as the sequence is matched at minimum 80%. The examiner, however, would like to address applicant’s arguments directed to search. While PE2E does include searches and it was utilized to retrieve references utilized in the rejection, the search itself is done using ABSS, specifically designed to searching SEQ ID and mapping inventive SEQ ID to what is already known in the art. Applicants’ are invited to visit USPTO Patent Center website and electronic file wrapper for this application to review search by STIC and ABSS. The ABSS search utilizes application number which in this case is 17/762689-X, wherein X is the inventive SEQ ID. The search summary lists applications number along with % Querry match and which SEQ ID meets the inventive SEQ ID. The examiner is not able to attach the search from ABSS because the searches are over 500 pages long. So no, the examiner could not make mistake if the computer matched the SEQ IDs. The computer matches actual sequences and not what applicants call the sequence (in this case DNase). Double Patenting Rejection of record is not overcome and is incorporated here by reference. Examiner is not sure what applicants mean by requesting that the rejection be deferred. However, examiner agrees to hold the rejection in abeyance and the decision to maintain will be re-evaluated once one of the application is allowed to determine further action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit has recently clarified the application of the written description requirement. The court stated that a written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials". University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not description of that material". Further, the court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus". The analysis will begin with the first element of the court’s decision in Eli Lilly; namely, the description of a representative number of species. Initially, the true size of the claimed genus will be illustrated. Instant claims 1, 2 and 22 all comprise following limitation: “and in the presence of a polypeptide having cellulase activity wherein the polypeptide having cellulase activity has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 10, SEQ ID NO: 11, SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO: 13 or a polypeptide having at least 80% sequence identity thereto”. Instant claim 6 comprises following limitation: “the polypeptide having DNase activity has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2, SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4, SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 6, SEQ ID NO: 7, SEQ ID NO: 8, SEQ ID NO: 9 or a polypeptide having at least 60% sequence identity thereto”. **** SEQ ID NO;1 and SEQ ID NO:11 are selected only to illustrate the broadness of the claims; however, the issue applies to all SEQ ID NO 1-13****** The claims are directed to an extremely broad genus of sequences defined by as little as 80% identity relative to SEQ ID 10-13 and as little as 60% identity relative to SEQ ID 1-9. With respect to the sequences defined by 60% identity, it should be noted that the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:1 is 225 amino acids in length. With respect to the sequences defined by 80% identity, it should be noted that the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 11 is 773 amino acids in length. Sequence having 60% identity encompass polypeptides having anywhere from 1 to 89 amino acid substitutions, deletions or additions in any combination along any length of SEQ ID NO: 1. Sequence having 80% identity encompass polypeptides having anywhere from 1 to 155 amino acid substitutions, deletions or additions in any combination along any length of SEQ ID NO: 11. Thus, basic statistics would dictate that the claims are directed to an almost immeasurably large and highly variable genus comprising literally a myriad of sequences (20 amino acid choices at a position ^ 155 variable amino acid positions = 20155 for SEQ ID NO 11; 40 amino acid choices at a position ^155 variable amino acids position = 40155). Likewise, the undefined variant contemplated in claims 1, 2, 6 and 22 encompasses any number of substitutions, deletions or additions in any combination along any length of SEQ ID NO: 1-9 and 10-13. This also encompasses a myriad of sequences. In contrast to the extremely large and highly divergent genus outlined above, Applicant only appears to describe two polypeptides having the required DNase and cellulase activity. Given, the large size of the claimed genus and high degree of structural variably associated therein; Applicant’s disclosure is not representative of the claimed genus as a whole. In the absence of a representative number of species, the specification must at least describe the structural features that are required for the claimed function. That being said, the analysis will now transition to the structural element of the court's decision in Eli Lilly. As outlined above, the claims are directed to extremely large and highly divergent genus of polypeptides, variants, and fragments that are all required to have glucoamylase activity. However, the specification does not sufficiently describe the necessary structural features that must be retained by members of the claimed genus as to establish a structure-function relationship with respect to the glucoamylase activity. Thus, Applicants do not sufficiently describe: (i) the structural features that are required to be retained by members of the claimed genus as to establish a structure-function relationship; and (ii) the structural feature required to distinguish members of the claimed genus from other chemical structures. Therefore, based on the analysis above, Applicant has not met either of the two elements of the written description requirement as set forth in the court's decision in Eli Lilly. As a result, it is not clear that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed. In view of the discussion above, the decision in AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014) also appears relevant to the instant case. In Abbvie, an analogy is drawn between a claimed genus and a plot of land (see pages 1789-1791). Using this analogy, the Court offered that “[I]f the disclosed species only abide in a corner of the genus, one has not described the genus sufficiently to show that the inventor invented, or had possession of, the genus. He only described a portion of it.” Similar to the analogy drawn in Abbvie, in the case of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court (at page 1171) offered: [M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of purposed genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species. *** All dependent claims inherit deficiencies of independent claims**** 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, 2, 4-9, 21 and 22 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. Instant claims 1, 2 and 22 all comprise following limitation: “and in the presence of a polypeptide having cellulase activity wherein the polypeptide having cellulase activity has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 10, SEQ ID NO: 11, SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO: 13 or a polypeptide having at least 80% sequence identity thereto”. Instant claim 6 comprises following limitation: “the polypeptide having DNase activity has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2, SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4, SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 6, SEQ ID NO: 7, SEQ ID NO: 8, SEQ ID NO: 9 or a polypeptide having at least 60% sequence identity thereto”. In both situations term “or a polypeptide having at least 80% sequence identity thereto” and term “or a polypeptide having at least 60% sequence identity thereto” render claims indefinite. It is not clear if the polypeptides having required minimum identity (80% and 60%) are the same polypeptide as disclosed in claims 1, 2, 6 and 22 (SEQ ID NO: 1-13) or an entirely different polypeptide of another SEQ ID NO as long as the sequence matched 60% of 80% of the claimed SEQ ID Nos. For the purpose of rejection: WO 2017/162836 to Gori – examiner will refer to this as SEQ ID 1 which is the same as instant SEQ ID 1. CC PF 23-MAR-2017; 2017WO-EP057012. XX PR 23-MAR-2016; 2016DK-00000179. XX CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS. XX CC PI Gori K, Baunsgaard L; XX DR WPI; 2017-674026/68. XX CC PT Use of DNase for treating fabric to provide improved softness, ease of CC PT ironing and anti-crease properties. XX CC PS Claim 9; SEQ ID NO 1; 65pp; English. XX Query Match 100.0%; Score 1214; Length 225; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 225; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 VPVNPEPDATSVENVALKTGSGDSQSDPIKADLEVKGQSALPFDVMCWAILCKGAPNVLQ 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 VPVNPEPDATSVENVALKTGSGDSQSDPIKADLEVKGQSALPFDVMCWAILCKGAPNVLQ 60 Qy 61 RVNEKTKNSNRDRSGANKGPFKDPQKWGIKALPPKNPSWSAQDFKSPEEYAFASSLQGGT 120 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 61 RVNEKTKNSNRDRSGANKGPFKDPQKWGIKALPPKNPSWSAQDFKSPEEYAFASSLQGGT 120 Qy 121 NAILAPVNLASQNSQGGVLNGFYSANKVAQFDPSKPQQTKGTWFQITKFTGAAGPYCKAL 180 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 121 NAILAPVNLASQNSQGGVLNGFYSANKVAQFDPSKPQQTKGTWFQITKFTGAAGPYCKAL 180 Qy 181 MFSLGSNDKSVCDKNKNIAGDWGFDPAKWAYQYDEKNNKFNYVGK 225 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 181 MFSLGSNDKSVCDKNKNIAGDWGFDPAKWAYQYDEKNNKFNYVGK 225 SEQ ID 3 of Gori matched 100% to instant SEQ ID 2 Bacillus subtilis DNase, SEQ ID 3. XX KW DNase; Deoxyribonuclease; surfactant; textile. XX OS Bacillus subtilis. XX CC PN WO2017162836-A1. XX CC PD 28-SEP-2017. XX CC PF 23-MAR-2017; 2017WO-EP057012. XX PR 23-MAR-2016; 2016DK-00000179. XX CC PA (NOVO ) NOVOZYMES AS. XX CC PI Gori K, Baunsgaard L; XX Query Match 100.0%; Score 580; Length 142; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 109; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 ARYDDILYFPASRYPETGAHISDAIKAGHSDVCTIERSGADKRRQESLKGIPTKPGFDRD 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 34 ARYDDILYFPASRYPETGAHISDAIKAGHSDVCTIERSGADKRRQESLKGIPTKPGFDRD 93 Qy 61 EWPMAMCEEGGKGASVRYVSSSDNRGAGSWVGNRLSGFADGTRILFIVQ 109 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 94 EWPMAMCEEGGKGASVRYVSSSDNRGAGSWVGNRLSGFADGTRILFIVQ 142 DR WPI; 2017-674026/68. US 7,629,158 to Perez SEQ ID 4 is the same as instant SEQ ID 11, Examiner will utilize PG Pub US 2008/0005851 for ease of using paragraphs in lieu of citing pages and numbers. US-11-811-129-4 Filing date in PALM: 2007-06-08 Sequence 4, US/11811129 Patent No. 7629158 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Procter & Gamble Company APPLICANT: Perez-Pratt Vinuesa, Eva APPLICANT: Ure, Colin APPLICANT: Baeck, Andre APPLICANT: Souter, Philip TITLE OF INVENTION: Cleaning and/or Treatment Compositions FILE REFERENCE: 10454M CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/11/811,129 CURRENT FILING DATE: 2007-06-21 NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 6 SEQ ID NO 4 LENGTH: 773 TYPE: PRT ORGANISM: Bacillus sp Query Match 100.0%; Score 4131; Length 773; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 773; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 AEGNTREDNFKHLLGNDNVKRPSEAGALQLQEVDGQMTLVDQHGEKIQLRGMSTHGLQWF 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 AEGNTREDNFKHLLGNDNVKRPSEAGALQLQEVDGQMTLVDQHGEKIQLRGMSTHGLQWF 60 Qy 61 PEILNDNAYKALANDWESNMIRLAMYVGENGYASNPELIKSRVIKGIDLAIENDMYVIVD 120 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 61 PEILNDNAYKALANDWESNMIRLAMYVGENGYASNPELIKSRVIKGIDLAIENDMYVIVD 120 Qy 121 WHVHAPGDPRDPVYAGAEDFFRDIAALYPNNPHIIYELANEPSSNNNGGAGIPNNEEGWN 180 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 121 WHVHAPGDPRDPVYAGAEDFFRDIAALYPNNPHIIYELANEPSSNNNGGAGIPNNEEGWN 180 Qy 181 AVKEYADPIVEMLRDSGNADDNIIIVGSPNWSQRPDLAADNPINDHHTMYTVHFYTGSHA 240 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 181 AVKEYADPIVEMLRDSGNADDNIIIVGSPNWSQRPDLAADNPINDHHTMYTVHFYTGSHA 240 Qy 241 ASTESYPPETPNSERGNVMSNTRYALENGVAVFATEWGTSQANGDGGPYFDEADVWIEFL 300 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 241 ASTESYPPETPNSERGNVMSNTRYALENGVAVFATEWGTSQANGDGGPYFDEADVWIEFL 300 Qy 301 NENNISWANWSLTNKNEVSGAFTPFELGKSNATNLDPGPDHVWAPEELSLSGEYVRARIK 360 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 301 NENNISWANWSLTNKNEVSGAFTPFELGKSNATNLDPGPDHVWAPEELSLSGEYVRARIK 360 Qy 361 GVNYEPIDRTKYTKVLWDFNDGTKQGFGVNSDSPNKELIAVDNENNTLKVSGLDVSNDVS 420 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 361 GVNYEPIDRTKYTKVLWDFNDGTKQGFGVNSDSPNKELIAVDNENNTLKVSGLDVSNDVS 420 Qy 421 DGNFWANARLSADGWGKSVDILGAEKLTMDVIVDEPTTVAIA AIPQSSKSGWANPERAVR 480 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 421 DGNFWANARLSADGWGKSVDILGAEKLTMDVIVDEPTTVAIA AIPQSSKSGWANPERAVR 480 Qy 481 VNAEDFVQQTDGKYKAGLTITGEDAPNLKNIAFHEEDNNMNNIILFVGTDAADVIYLDNI 540 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 481 VNAEDFVQQTDGKYKAGLTITGEDAPNLKNIAFHEEDNNMNNIILFVGTDAADVIYLDNI 540 Qy 541 KVIGTEVEIPVVHDPKGEAVLPSVFEDGTRQGWDWAGESGVKTALTIEEANGSNALSWEF 600 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 541 KVIGTEVEIPVVHDPKGEAVLPSVFEDGTRQGWDWAGESGVKTALTIEEANGSNALSWEF 600 Qy 601 GYPEVKPSDNWATAPRLDFWKSDLVRGENDYVAFDFYLDPVRATEGAMNINLVFQPPTNG 660 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 601 GYPEVKPSDNWATAPRLDFWKSDLVRGENDYVAFDFYLDPVRATEGAMNINLVFQPPTNG 660 Qy 661 YWVQAPKTYTINFDELEEANQVNGLYHYEVKINVRDITNIQDDTLLRNMMIIFADVESDF 720 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 661 YWVQAPKTYTINFDELEEANQVNGLYHYEVKINVRDITNIQDDTLLRNMMIIFADVESDF 720 Qy 721 AGRVFVDNVRFEGAATTEPVEPEPVDPGEETPPVDEKEAKKEQKEAEKEEKEE 773 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 721 AGRVFVDNVRFEGAATTEPVEPEPVDPGEETPPVDEKEAKKEQKEAEKEEKEE 773 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gori (WO 2017/162836 previously cited) in view of Perez (US 2008/0005851). With respect to claims 1, 2, 6 and 22, Gori discloses detergent composition utilized to treat fabric. The composition comprises DNase component having at least 60% sequence identity (see claim 20). DNase component include SEQ ID NO 1 which is 100% match to SEQ ID 1 of instant claim 6. Liquid detergent composition of Gori further comprises surfactant, builder and an enzyme (Item 49, p. 40), wherein the enzyme includes cellulase (item 53, p. 40). Builders are based on zeolites, diphosphates, silicates and ethanol amines (p. 17) surfactants are ionic surfactants (p. 16). While use of co-builders is enabled they are optional and also include the same components as the builders themselves. Consequently, presence of polymers of claims 1, 2 and 22 is not required. In fact, Gori only mentions co-builders merely as possibility since none are utilized in the examples. The examples are directed to a difference between detergents utilizing DNase to those that do not use DNase. On page 21 Gori discloses use of cellulases but does not show if any of the cellulase enzymes have SEQ ID that meets the SEQ ID of instant invention. Perez also discloses fabric detergent composition which utilize cellulase enzymes. AS per above Querry, SEQ ID 4 of Perez [0043] matched 100% to the instant SEQ ID 11 and is commercially available under tradename Celluclean by Novozymes A/S which are specifically designed for use in detergents as cleaning cellulase. According to the trademark description, it offers high performance on whiteness and brightness as well as preventing dirt particles from depositing. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize cellulase enzyme that is already available on the market as the cellulase of Gori. This is obvious especially because Gori, in his description of Cellulases on page 21 identifies cellulases made from specifically under tradename Celluclean. With respect to claims 4 and 5, DNase of Gori can be from fungi such as Aspergillus oryzae (p. 10, l. 21-28 SEQ ID 1), or bacterial SEQ ID 3 (matched 100% instant SEQ ID 2) With respect to claims 7-9, examples of Gori do not utilize polymers excluded by the rejected claims. With respect to claim 21, as was mentioned above Gori discloses laundry detergent utilized to wash textiles. 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, 2, 4-9, 21 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/557507 (‘507). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: co-pending application ‘507 which has common inventors discloses a detergent composition having the same polypeptides and no acrylates or cellulose polymers. The polypeptides of instant claim 6 are the same as polypeptides in claim 8 of ‘507. The polypeptides of instant claim 11 are the same as polypeptides in claim 7 of ‘507. The courts have held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch, 315F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). Further, attention is drawn to MPEP 2112.01, which states that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”, In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). AS such all activity claimed in both application will be inherent because claimed polypeptides have the same chemical structure and therefore the same properties. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Other references of interest include: WO 2017/134840to Suzuki which teaches Cellulase SEQ ID 13 utilized in co-pending application 18/557,507. US 2019/0127664 and US 2018/0163189 both to Oestergaard which matches 100% instant SEQ ID 1, 3 and 4. US 2018/0112156 and US 2019/0048291 both to Gori which also matches 100% instant SEQ IDs both teaching use of DNase with cellulases. US 2020/0123476 to Gjermansen which matched 100% instant SEQ ID 1. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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. /KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 October 14, 2026