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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-19,22, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimazu et al. (US 2013/0029897).
Regarding claim 18 Shimazu discloses a method of improving the sustainability profile of a detergent composition, the method comprising replacing partly or fully one or more antiredeposition polymers in the detergent composition with a cellulase, wherein the replacement with cellulase improves the sustainability profile of said detergent composition. (See Shimazu Abstract and [0002]-[0004] wherein cellulase is used in place of traditional antiredepsition polymers, i.e. it replaces them, and thus sustainability profile is inherently improved.)
Regarding claim 19 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the cellulase is selected from the group consisting of cellulases belonging to GH5, GH7, GH44, GH45. EC 3.2.1.4, EC 3.2.1.21, EC 3.2.1.91 and EC 3.2.1.172. (See Shimazu wherein the cellulase belong to EC 3.2.1.4 or EC 3.2.1.91.)
Regarding claim 22 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the detergent composition further comprises at least one additional enzyme selected from the group consisting of protease, amylase, deoxyribonuclease, lipase, xyloglucanase, cutinase, pectinase, pectin lyase, xanthanases, peroxidase, haloperoxygenases, catalase and mannanase. (See Shimazu [0032] wherein the composition also includes enzymes include at least xyloglucanase, cutinase, pectinase, etc.)
Regarding claim 28 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the one or more replaced antiredeposition polymers is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylic acid, modified polyacrylic acid polymer, modified polyacrylic acid copolymer, maleic acid-acrylic acid copolymer, carboxymethyl cellulose, cellulose gum, and methyl cellulose, or a combination of two or more of said polymers. (See Shimazu [0002] wherein the antiredeposition polymers replaced include carboxymethyl cellulose)
Regarding claims 29-30 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the wash performance, as measured by delta REM of an item, of the detergent composition comprising the replaced one or more antiredeposition polymers is at least maintained after at least one full scale wash cycle and wherein the wash performance is improved after at least one full scale wash cycle. (See Rejection of claims above and wherein when the cellulase used is the same above than the improvement in wash performance is inherent by following the method.)
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.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu et al. (US 2013/0029897) as applied to claims above.
Regarding claims 26-27 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the cellulase and additional enzymes are provided in some w/w percentage but does not specifically disclose it being from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) active enzyme protein.
As the cost of enzyme as well as amount of material which may be treated are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said %(w/w) of active enzyme protein, with said cost and material treated both increasing as the %(w/w) of active enzyme protein, is increased, the precise %(w/w) of active enzyme protein, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed %(w/w) of active enzyme protein cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the %(w/w) of active enzyme protein in the method of Shimazu to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and materials treated (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 20-21 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu et al. (US 2013/0029897) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Schulein et al. (US 6,117,664).
Regarding claims 20-21 and 36 Shimazu does not specifically disclose the cellulase source and having an amino acid sequences claimed or source thereof.
Schulein discloses detergent compositions comprising cellulase from a fungal Humicola insolens which is used to prevent backstaining, i.e. redeposition and wherein the cellulase has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 10, SEQ ID NO: 11, SEQ ID NO: 12 and SEQ ID NO: 13, or a cellulase that has an amino acid sequence having at least 60 % of SEQ ID NO: 10. (See Schulein Abstract and Seq 4 which has at least 60 % of SEQ ID NO: 10.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the cellulases from humicola insolens and those having the amino acid sequences of Schulein in the method of Shimazu because such cellulase enzymes are useful in detergents to prevent redeposition and are less harsh than other known cellulase enzymes as would be desirable in the method of Shimazu.
Claims 23-25 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu et al. (US 2013/0029897) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Gori et al. (US 2017/0107457).
Regarding claims 23-25 and 37 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the composition may include various other materials including other enzymes and deodorizing materials but does not specifically disclose deoxyribonuclease.
Gori discloses a laundry composition comprising deoxyribonuclease obtained from a fungal or aspergillus source and those having at least 60%, sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 which may be used in combination with cellulase. (See Gori Abstract [0007], [0024], [0072] and SEQ ID NO: 2 which has at least 60%, sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the present application.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a DNases as described by Gori in the method of Shimazu because such DNases represents a material known to be used in combination with cellulase and provide specific beneficial and deodorizing properties to a detergent as would be desirable in the method of Shimazu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “ Applicants respectfully disagree with this characterization of Shimazu. Simply because Shimazu includes a cellulase, it cannot be assumed that such replaces an anti-redeposition polymer and improves the sustainability profile of the initial detergent composition.
In support of the characterization of Shimazu, the examiner cites to the Abstract, and paragraphs [0002] and [0004] of Shimazu. In the Abstract it’s seen that Shimazu describes a mutant cellulase that has enhanced anti-redeposition ability. In paragraph [0002] Shimazu describes the importance of preventing redeposition and in paragraph [0004] cellulases are generally described.
It is noted that the examiner disagrees that the claim requires an “indication of whether such a cleaning agent composition would or did contain a cellulase to begin with, an anti-redeposition polymer, or any other components” In this case the claims requires “replacing” an antideposition polymer in a detergent composition with a cellulase. In this case the “replacing” step as claimed broadly reads on a fully mental process and does not require an already completed formulation which has an antiredeposition polymer physically removed therefrom. Shimazu describes that detergents are provided with antiredeposition agents and makes note of numerous traditionally used antiredeposition polymers that are known to be added to a detergent (See Shimazu [0002] wherein traditional polymers for antiredeposition are described as known.) Shimazu also notes that their present invention is a novel cellulase to be provided in a detergent composition to provide the antiredeposition effect, i.e. it replaces the other conventionally known antiredeposition polymers. (See Shimazu [0002] and [0161]) Since Shimzu describes adding the novel cellulase to a known detergent composition while they do not add some of all of the other known antiredeposition polymers it thus “replaces” the effect and substance of known traditional antiredeposition polymers with the enhanced antiredeposition of the cellulase in the said detergents.
Applicant also argues “The examiner’s attention is respectfully further directed to the Examples of Shimazu. In the Examples, descriptions of relevant experimental procedures are first provided. At paragraph [0191] is described “Evaluation of Anti-Redeposition Ability.” In that section the method is “the detergency evaluation method described in JIS K3362…” with no additional explanation of JIS K3362. Further the description of the method to be used, as provided in paragraph [0191], recites use of “a cleaning agent composition” with no description of what such composition contains. There is no indication of whether such a cleaning agent composition would or did contain a cellulase to begin with, an anti-redeposition polymer, or any other components. Accordingly, Shimazu does not provide a repeatable method by which anti-redeposition can be evaluated.
In paragraph [0240] “Test Example 1” of Shimazu, the anti-redeposition ability of a particular cellulase mutant is tested. The results of the test are provided in Table 7, where it is seen that addition of the cellulase provided a 2.77% increase in anti-redeposition. Similar evaluation of mutants in Test Examples 2-7 of Shimazu show some improvement in anti-redeposition upon addition of a test mutant cellulase. However, there is no indication in the specification or in these examples whether the starting cleaning composition contains an anti-redeposition polymer and no indication whether the improvement demonstrated by each individual cellulase would be sufficient to replace the loss of activity by reduction or removal of such an anti-redeposition polymer, if present in the cleaning composition. As such, Shimazu fails to describe a method of improving the sustainability profile of a detergent composition including replacing an anti-redeposition polymer in the detergent composition with a cellulase. “
The examiner notes that contrary to applicant’s arguments the Shimazu reference lists the exact and specific ingredients of the starting and modified cleaning compositions. (See Shimazu Compositions A-F ). Furthermore it is immaterial whether the cellulase of Shimazu is sufficient to replace the loss of activity of any anti-redeposition polymer as the claims do not require replacing a loss of activity and arguments related to such are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
In regards to “improving the sustainability profile of a detergent” it is noted that this is an inherent characteristic of adding a cellulase to a detergent as described by Shimazu and such a statement is so broad that any given detergent may be considered to have a better “sustainability profile” for any given use by any given user. Any given detergent with cellulase will have an improved “sustainability profile” based on the fact that it exists while another detergent having other known antiredeposition ingredients may be more expensive, require more washing steps, use harder to source ingredients, be outlawed for use, more hazardous to health, etc.
Applicant finally argues that “The present application shows such an improvement, a result that is not demonstrated in Shimazu and would not have been anticipated from Shimazu. An example of the unexpected improvement discovered by the present inventors can be seen in Table E7 of the present application showing the results of Example 1a, anti-redeposition performance. In Table E7, the first row shows performance of a reference detergent with 4% Sokalan CP5, an anti-redeposition polymer. The second row shows performance of the same reference detergent when the Sokalan CP5 is reduced to 0.5%. Accordingly, the difference between the first row and the second row shows a performance gap that is attributable to the reduction of Sokalan CP5. The third, fourth and fifth rows of Table E7 show the performance with the reduced Sokalan CP5, but also with the addition of cellulases, which demonstrate that the performance gap can be closed with the use of cellulases. Similarly, Table E8 shows that the performance gap observed in removal of the Sokalan CP5 (performance gap observable from the comparison of the third row to the first row) can be lessened by use of cellulases.”
It is noted that applicant’s specific examples in the specification are immaterial to the prior art and claimed invention as applicant does not claim specific or unexpected results but merely requires replacing one antiredeposation agent with another. As such applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and are not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-7065. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M HURST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights