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 .
Response to Arguments
In their response dated 2/13/2026 the applicants argued following:
Oestergaard discloses composition that comprises 0.2 PCA, therefore Oestergard does not disclose the detergent composition that does not comprise polyacrylic acids. Applicants specifically support their position based on example disclosing detergent A (p. 184).
Response:
Applicants are correct. Detergent A comprises 0.2 of PCA, however it is not the only example provided by Oestergaard. Oestergard discloses Model detergent X which does not utilize acrylic based polymers. Additionally, the examples are only examples and by means are to be used to exclude the remaining teachings of Oestergard. Claim 6 of Ostergard clearly teaches the composition which comprises DNase, surfactant and a builder. Claim 8 adds enzymes. While claims do not specify what the definition of builder is, the preferred are listed on top of page 150 and include citric acid, MGDA, and GLDA. None of those are listed in instant claim 1. Just like any patents Oestergard discloses other components that can be utilized but according to his specification, they are all optional. Consequently, while possibility of using PCA is disclosed, it is not a required. Consequently, Oestergard discloses composition as required the instant claims.
Gori does not disclose detergent that does not comprise polymer as claimed. Specifically applicants support their position based on composition that comprises Ariel Color and Style (P. 56) which comprises PEGNinyl Acetate.
Response:
Bolded by the applicants PEGNinyl Acetate is a copolymer of polyethylene glycol and vinyl acetate. Even if the polymer is present it does not belong to the list disclosed in claim 1 since neither PEG of vinyl acetate are monomers that are used to make all listed polymers. Additionally, none of the claims of Gori disclose use of excluded polymers. Polymers of Gori such as nylon or polyester are polymers from which fabric is made. Any type of builder utilized is optional and is selected from many polymeric or non-polymeric additives.
Johansen does not mention DNases mentioned. Nowhere in Johansen is an absence of polyacrylic acid polymers mentioned. Johansen does not mention DNases.
Response:
With respect to the DNases, the prior art does not have to explicitly use term DNase in order to meet instant invention. Johansen however, discloses SEQ ID1 and SEQ ID 2 [0012, 0013] the sequencing of which was matched and shown in the first office action on the merits. The two sequences meet instant SEQ ID 11. Consequently Johansen meets the structural requirements of the instant invention and therefore meets the claims.
With respect to Johansen not disclosing instantly excluded claims, the prior art cannot mention that which it does not use. In other words Johansen does not use the excluded polymer that is why they are not mentioned. The only polymers that appear in Johansen’s disclosure are beta glucans [0165], PEG for non-dusting granulates [0178] polymeric surfactants [0182], wherein additional polymers are optional by virtue of term “may” and the fact that they are not utilized in the examples.
When arguing the prior art and position taken by the examiner, it is important to take into consideration the entirety of the prior art and not pick and choose the parts of the prior art, since selected portion do not teach away from the teachings of the prior art in its entirety.
In summary, the rejections of record are not overcome. Per applicant’s comments, the Double patenting rejection will be maintain until Terminal disclaimer can be filed. Rejections will be restated to reflect new claims 21 and 22.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In instant situation the two claims are identical.
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 § 102
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, 2, 4-10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oestergaard (WO 2017/064269).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 6 and 22, Oestergaard discloses detergent composition comprising peptide having DNase activity and amino acid activity of SEQ ID: 1 having 96.8% match to the SEQ ID:1 of the instant invention, wherein composition does not comprise polyacrylic acids.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The detergent composition of Oestergaard prevents, reduces or removes soil and improves whiteness (page 93).
With respect to claim 4, SEQ ID: 1 can be sourced from fungal cells (AMA1 ANSI)- – see pages 121 and 123.
With respect to claim 5, the source of polypeptide can also be from bacteria – see pages 122 and 123.
With respect to claims 7-9, since the SEQ ID; 1 of Ostergaard is 97.8% identical, the properties associated with the polypeptide SED ID: 1 will be inherent. This is because the compounds having identical chemical structure have properties that are mutually exclusive and inseparable.
With respect to claim 10, the polypeptide of Ostergaard can be in form of granule or powder and it is utilized as a detergent (claims 7 and 9) utilized to wash items (claim 10 of Ostergaard.
With respect to claim 21, Ostergaard discloses a detergent composition (p. 16, l. 8) and wash performance.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gori (WO 2017/162836).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 6 and 22, Gori discloses detergent composition comprising polypeptide which is 100% sequence match to the SED ID: 1 of the instant invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
302
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Gori’s claims 6 and 7 disclose that the polypeptide is of fungal or bacterial origin. See also pages 2 and 6 of Gori.
With respect to claims 7-8, 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).
Consequently the detergent composition of Gori as presented will have the same chemical activity when compared to a composition comprising polyacrylic acid or derivative thereof.
The detergent composition of Gori is defined as composition that can be in form of a liquid or solid detergent, wherein solid includes powder or granulate (page 4).
With respect to claim 9, content of any additional polymers such as polyacrylic acid or cellulose is zero.
With respect to claim 10, claim 17 of Gori teaches step of washing an item with the polypeptide composition.
With respect to claim 21, Gori utilizes the composition in detergents (p. 3, l. 28).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johansen (US 2011/0201082).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 21 and 22, Johansen discloses a composition for a detergent [0164]. The composition is utilized for washing textiles [0150] laundry [0161] and stone [0154]. The composition as disclosed in the examples, does not disclose use polyacrylic acids and its derivatives or cellulose and its derivatives. The polypeptide discloses use of SEQ ID: 1 and 2, that is 100% match to instantly claims SEQ ID: 11.
PNG
media_image3.png
846
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the sources for polypeptide (hosts) can be bacterial [074, 0091] or fungal [0092].
With respect to claim 7, 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).
Consequently the detergent composition of Johansen as presented will have the same chemical activity when compared to a composition comprising polyacrylic acid or derivative thereof.
With respect to claims 8-9, in addition to not having acrylics or cellulose component, the detergent composition of Johansen is defined as composition that can be in form of a liquid or solid detergent, wherein solid includes powder or granulate [0179].
With respect to claim 10, as it was disclosed above, the composition of Johansen is a detergent that can be utilized to wash items [0021] wherein washing will inherently remove and reduce soil.
With respect to claim 21, Johansen discloses use of its composition in detergents [0003] (field of the invention.
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 1-11, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 March 9, 2026