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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-17 are pending. Claims 6, 8-10 and 18-20 are cancelled in the response filed 11/6/025. No claim is amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gori et al. (US 2018/0112156 A1) in view of Haberecht et al. (US 8,901,066 B2) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge Gori does not teach the 0.5-25% w/w of active enzyme protein of the Markush in claim 1. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Gori [0159] and [0176] teaches the same enzymes of claim 1. Gori et al. [0182], teaches concentration of enzyme protein in the range of 0.0001- 100 ppm and it is understood that 1ppm = 0.0001%. Examiner notes that claim 1 limitation to 0.5-25% active enzyme protein is outside of the teachings of Gori et al. alone, however, Gori is properly combined with Haberecht et al. which is in the analogous boron-free liquid enzymatic detergent art (as it is immaterial and irrespective of intended uses in laundry, dishwashing, handwashing, shampoos) for its teaching one of ordinary skill that it is commonly known to include the same claimed 4 diols (claim 3) and up to 8% by weight of enzymes for effective cleaning. See col.8,ln.64. Gori is properly combined with Haberecht as both considered to be in the analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of boron free liquid enzymatic detergents comprising diols. The combination rejection is maintained because optimizing the amount of active enzyme protein in a cleaning composition within the broadly claimed range with the other requisite components of the claim is evidently suggested by the rejection of record.
Accordingly the claim amendments are addressed below.
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 1-5, 7, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gori et al. (US 2018/0112156 A1) in view of Haberecht et al. (US 8,901,066 B2).
With respect to independent claim 1, Gori et al. teach a liquid [0151] boron-free enzyme composition, see [0154] teaching one of ordinary skill to exclude boron and instead use peptide aldehydes.
Regarding claim 1(a) limitation to 0.5-25 w/w % of active enzyme protein Gori et al. [0176] and [0182] on page 15 guide one of ordinary skill to the enzymes of claim 1(a) taught by Gori et al. page 14, [0159] and [0020] on page 2. Gori teaches one of ordinary skill to include DNAse with the enzymes in the Markush of clam 1, see [0159] and [0176] teaching the same enzymes of claim 1. Gori et al. [0182], teaches concentration of enzyme protein in the range of 0.0001- 100 ppm and it is understood that 1ppm = 0.0001%.
Limitation to claim 1 (c) 50-98% w/w of water and 50-90% w/w of water of claim 7 is taught on page 14, [0151] at least 20 % by weight and up to 95 % water.
Claim 1 (c) limitation to wherein the composition is free of perfume is met by the art teaching on page 13, [0142] that perfumes are optional.
Gori et al. do not teach claim 1 (a) limitation to 0.5-25% w/w of active enzyme protein. Examiner notes Gori teaches one of ordinary skill to include DNAse with the enzymes in the Markush of clam 1, see [0159] and [0176] teaching the same enzymes of claim 1. Gori et al. [0182], teaches concentration of enzyme protein in the range of 0.0001- 100 ppm and it is understood that 1ppm = 0.0001%. Examiner notes that claim 1 limitation to 0.5-25% active enzyme protein is outside of the teachings of Gori et al. alone. And Gori et al. do not teach limitation in claim 1 (b) 0.05-10% w/w of aliphatic 1,2-diols selected from the group consisting of 1,2- pentanediol, 1,2-hexanediol, 1,2-heptanediol, and 1,2-octanediol as required by claims 1, 4-5. Examiner notes that [0151] guide one of ordinary skill to 0-30% inclusion of diols in general in the liquid detergent of Gori et al.
In the analogous art of enzymatic liquid detergents, Haberecht et al. teach the claimed 1,2- pentanediol, 1,2-hexanediol, 1,2-heptanediol, and 1,2-octanediol are commonly known alcohols used in enzymatic liquid detergents. Also, Haberecht et al. teach one of ordinary skill inclusion of 0 to 8% by weight of enzymes for effective cleaning. See col.8,ln.64 guiding one of ordinary skill optimize the amount of active enzyme protein in a cleaning composition within the broadly claimed range including the amounts exemplified by Gori et al. and also including the amended amounts which entirety of range is encompassed by Haberecht et al. to result in effective cleaning.
Gori and Haberecht are both considered to be in the analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of boron free liquid enzymatic detergents comprising diols.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diols of Gori et al. with the claimed 1,2- pentanediol, 1,2-hexanediol, 1,2-heptanediol, and 1,2-octanediol as taught by Haberecht et al. because Haberecht et al. teach the claimed 1,2- pentanediol, 1,2-hexanediol, 1,2-heptanediol, and 1,2-octanediol are commonly known alcohols used in enzymatic liquid detergents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the amount of active enzyme protein of Gori et al. with the claimed 0.5-25 % w/w as taught by Haberecht et al. because Haberecht et al. teach inclusion of 0 to 8% by weight of enzymes for effective cleaning are commonly known and used in liquid detergents. See col.8,ln.64 guiding one of ordinary skill optimize the amount of active enzyme protein in a cleaning composition within the amounts exemplified by Gori et al. and also including the amended amounts which entirety of range is encompassed by Haberecht et al. to result in effective cleaning.
Limitation of claims 2-3 to further comprising 5-50% w/w of one or more polyols, which are not the aliphatic 1,2-diols is taught in [0151] teaching other types of polyol solvents in amounts of at least 20%.
Limitation to claim 11 to being free of optical brightener is met by Gori et al. teaching one of ordinary skill on page 15, line 2 that the optical brightener is optional.
Limitation of claim 12 to comprising less than 3% w/w of surfactant is suggested by Gori et al. in [0038] teaching that surfactants are optional.
Limitation to claim 13 to comprising less than 0.1% w/w of strong sequestering builders, such as EDTA, EDTMP, NTMP, DTPMP, MGDA, NTA, HEDP, STPP, IDS, GLDA, is met by Gori et al. teaching that phosphate builders are not environmentally friendly, and thus guiding one of ordinary skill to avoid their use. See [0053] teaching a builder which is not a phosphate builder because phosphate builders have a negative impact on the environment. Gori et al. guide one of ordinary skill to select a builder from sodium carbonate, sodium silicate, zeolite and sodium citrate. See page 5, [0053].
Claim 14 limitation to comprising less than 1% w/w of hydrophobic solvent, excluding the aliphatic 1,2-diols is met by Gori et al. teaching in [0151] that their aqueous liquid or gel detergent may contain from 0 - 30 % organic solvent.
Limitation to claim 15 to no solid phase after centrifugation at 1200 G for 10 minutes; or where the turbidity is less than 20 NTU is met by Gori teaching a liquid or a gel detergent with enzymes, diol and water, would reasonably be expected to have the same properties of turbidity and phase. [0152].
Regarding claim 16, Gori et al. guide one of ordinary skill to other ingredients as replacement options encompassing limitation to free of benzoates, sulfites, and isothiozolinones and does not mention sorbates and phenoxyethanol. [0086] also guides one of ordinary skill to 0%.
Limitation of claim 17 to a method for preparing a liquid detergent composition, comprising adding the composition of claim 1 to a detergent composition premix is taught on page 14, [0156] teaching the premix of Gori et al. may be added to the soap at different stages of the process. For example, the premix containing a soap, DNase, and one or more additional enzymes, a protease inhibitor, and a salt of a monovalent cation and an organic anion may be prepared and the mixture is then plodded. The DNase and additional enzymes may be added at the same time as the protease inhibitor for example in liquid form.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761