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 § 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 1, 3, 6-9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vejborg et al. (US 2019/0161707) and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2017/0240877)
Regarding claim 1 and 3 Vejborg discloses a cleaning composition comprising a dispersin and at least one carbohydrase, wherein the carbohydrase amylase, and wherein said composition is a liquid laundry detergent composition and further comprises (ci) at least one surfactant. (See Vejborg Abstract [0006], [0012], [0019], and [0129] wherein a liquid laundry detergent cleaning composition comprises a despersin, amylase, and a surfactant.)
Vejborg discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the amylase is a polypeptide but does not specify the sequence thereof.
Anderson et al. disclose a detergent wherein amylase having a polypeptide sequence identical to SEQ ID NO 33 is known and provided in said detergent. (See Anderson Abstract and SEQ ID No 33 which is identical to present application SEQ ID NO 33.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an amylase having a sequence ID as described by Anderson in the composition of Vejborg because such an amylase is an amylase known to be effective in detergent compositions while providing stability in said detergents and fulfills the specific need for an amylase as required by Vejborgand one would have a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 12-13 Vejborg discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the composition wherein the dispersin is obtained from microbial and bacterial Terribacillus. (See Vejborg [0006])
Regarding claim 8 Vejborg discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the composition wherein the dispersin is selected from the group consisting of: a polypeptide having hexosaminidase activity selected from: a polypeptide having at least 90 sequence identity to the polypeptide shown in 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, SEQ ID NO: 10, SEQ ID NO: 11, SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO: 13, SEQ ID NO: 14, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 16, SEQ ID NO: 17, SEQ ID NO: 18, SEQ ID NO: 19, SEQ ID NO: 20, SEQ ID NO: 21, SEQ ID NO: 22, and SEQ ID NO: 23. (See Vejborg SEQ ID NO 19 which corresponds exactly to claimed SEQ ID NO 17.)
Regarding claim 9 Vejborg discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the composition wherein the amount of dispersin in the composition ranges from 0.01 to 1000 ppm, and wherein the amount of carbohydrase ranges from 0.01 to 1000 ppm. (See Vejborg [0053] wherein dispersin, i.e; hexosamindase enzyme, is in the range of 0.00001 to 10 ppm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 14 Vejborg discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the composition wherein the dispersin has at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 17 and the amylase has at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 33. (See Vejborg SEQ ID NO 19 which corresponds exactly to claimed SEQ ID NO 17 and is the dispersin and See Rejection above and Anderson Abstract and SEQ ID No 33 which is identical to present and application SEQ ID NO 33 and is the amylase.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In response to applicant’s amendments a new reference and rational have been provided to teach the claim features and make up for any argued deficiencies in the previously cited art and as such applicant’s arguments are moot.
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