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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 18-30, in the reply filed on 9/3/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that lack of unity was not previously asserted. This is not found persuasive because applicant has not pointed out any error in the examiner’s restriction requirement but merely asserts it was not done previously in this application. This is not persuasive without further pointing out any supposed error in the examiner’s requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 20 and 24 are 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.
Regarding claims 20 and 24, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 18-20,22, 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 20 Shimazu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the cellulase is obtained from a fungal source, preferably Humicola insolens or Thielavia terrestris or a bacterial source, preferably Bacillus akibai or Paenibacillus polymyxa. (See Shimazu [0065] wherein the cellulase may be from any source including Bacillus bacteria.)
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).
Claim 21 is 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 claim 21 Shimazu does not specifically disclose the cellulase has an amino acid sequences claimed.
Schulein discloses detergent compositions comprising cellulase 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 cellulase 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 23-26 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 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 source having at least 60 %, sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 which may be used in combination with cellulase. (See Gori Abstract [0007], [0024], 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 DNase as described by Gori in the method of Shimazu because such a DNase 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.
Conclusion
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