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 .
Applicant’s amendment and reply filed October 3, 2025 have been received and entered into the case. Claims 4 – 5 are canceled; claims 16 – 20 are added; claims 1 – 3 and 6 – 20 are pending; claim 15 is withdrawn; claims 1 – 3, 6 – 14 and 16 – 20 have been considered on the merits. All arguments have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 3, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn due to cancelation of claim 5.
Previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn due to cancelation of claims 4 – 5 and removing “preferred” ranges from the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 8, 10, 13 – 14, 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 13 – 14, 16, 18 – 20, Miracle teaches aqueous liquid laundry detergents (claims 1, 17, 0216) comprising 0.1% to 60% surfactant (0061, 0147), 0.00001% to about 2% amylase and/or protease (0112 - 0128) and 0.0001 to 0.05 wt % anthraquinone dyes including but not limited to Acid Blue 80, Solvent Violet 13, Disperse Violet 28 and Acid Violet 43 (claim 2, 0066 – 0068, 0087), which ranges of the various components overlap with those instantly claimed. Miracle teaches the detergents are packaged in fully or partially transparent containers (or at least 30%, 50%, 70% or 85%) (0213). Miracle does not teach the detergent in a container having a volume of 0.1 – 10L, or that of claim 13. However, changes in size or proportion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. “[M]ere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 2, the dyes are selected from those claimed by applicant, which would also inherently provide the color as claimed (0067).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the protease is a serine protease such as subtilisins, or subtilase (0114 0115).
Regarding claims 7 – 8, the detergent may further include iron chelators (iron sequestrants) (0063) such as EDTA, DTPA, EDDS, NTS (0163), or disclosed by applicant, indicating that these agents have the claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 10, the detergent may further include UV absorbing agents (0213). Although the claimed amount of absorbing agents is not disclosed, Miracle teaches that the various values disclosed are note strictly limited to the exact numerical values recited but are intended encompass a functionally equivalent range which can be modified made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Moreover, Miracle teaches and suggests such modifications and optimizations can and should be made by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining functional liquid laundry detergents in containers.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1 and 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977) in view of Boswell al. (US 2011/01200902).
Regarding claim 1, Miracle teaches aqueous liquid laundry detergents (claims 1, 17, 0216) comprising 0.1% to 60% surfactant (0061, 0147), 0.00001% to about 2% amylase and/or protease (0112 - 0128) and 0.0001 to 0.05 wt % anthraquinone dyes including but not limited to Acid Blue 80, Solvent Violet 13, Disperse Violet 28 and Acid Violet 43 (claim 2, 0066 – 0068, 0087), which ranges of the various components overlap with those instantly claimed. Miracle teaches the detergents are packaged in fully or partially transparent containers (0213). Miracle does not teach the detergent in a container having a volume of 0.1 – 10L. However, changes in size or proportion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. “[M]ere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 9, Miracle does not teach the container made from the recycled plastic. However, the reference states any conventional packaging may be used (0213). At the time the claims were filed, the claimed components were known in the art as conventional packaging for laundry detergents. In support, Boswell teaches containers for laundry detergent compositions (0002) comprising 10 – 95% recycled plastic (0008, claims). Thus, at the time the claims were filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use containers made from recycled materials as the conventional packaging in Miracle as a matter of routine practice.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1 and 11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977) in view of Borchert et al. (1995).
Regarding claim 1, Miracle teaches aqueous liquid laundry detergents (claims 1, 17, 0216) comprising 0.1% to 60% surfactant (0061, 0147), 0.00001% to about 2% amylase and/or protease (0112 - 0128) and 0.0001 to 0.05 wt % anthraquinone dyes including but not limited to Acid Blue 80, Solvent Violet 13, Disperse Violet 28 and Acid Violet 43 (claim 2, 0066 – 0068, 0087), which ranges of the various components overlap with those instantly claimed. Miracle teaches the detergents are packaged in fully or partially transparent containers (0213). Miracle does not teach the detergent in a container having a volume of 0.1 – 10L. However, changes in size or proportion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. “[M]ere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 11, Miracle does not teach the composition having a pH of 5 – 9. However, Miracle teaches the use of TERMAMYL® (0128) which was known to exhibit effective activity at pH 5 – 9. In support, Borchert teaches activity optimum for TERMAMYL® spans a fairly broad pH range including pH 5 – 9 (p.176, figure 1). As such, at the time the claims were filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the laundry detergent composition of Miracle had a pH of 5 – 9 for the known advantage of optimal activity, and with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining an effective laundry detergent composition.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1 and 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977) in view of Bae-Lee et al. (US 6159918).
Regarding claim 1, Miracle teaches aqueous liquid laundry detergents (claims 1, 17, 0216) comprising 0.1% to 60% surfactant (0061, 0147), 0.00001% to about 2% amylase and/or protease (0112 - 0128) and 0.0001 to 0.05 wt % anthraquinone dyes including but not limited to Acid Blue 80, Solvent Violet 13, Disperse Violet 28 and Acid Violet 43 (claim 2, 0066 – 0068, 0087), which ranges of the various components overlap with those instantly claimed. Miracle teaches the detergents are packaged in fully or partially transparent containers (0213). Miracle does not teach the detergent in a container having a volume of 0.1 – 10L. However, changes in size or proportion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. “[M]ere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 12, Miracle does not teach the container made from the claimed components. However, the reference states any conventional packaging may be used (0213). At the time the claims were filed, the claimed components were known in the art as conventional packaging for laundry detergents. In support, Bae-Lee teaches laundry detergent compositions in transparent containers made from polyethylene or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (col.11 line 62 – 67). Thus, at the time the claims were filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use PET as the conventional packaging in Miracle as a matter of routine practice.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed amount of dye comprising the claimed anthraquinone chromophores reduces loss of amylase and protease when exposed to sunlight via the transparent plastic container. Specifically, applicant argues that Miracle art does not teach the dye protects enzyme activity upon exposure to sunlight; does not teach the claimed dyes; that Miracle prefers no dyes are included; and finally, that examiner applies hindsight.
However, these arguments fail to persuade for the following reasons.
Regarding the argument that Miracle does not teach the dye protects enzyme activity upon exposure to sunlight through a transparent container as applicant has discovered, Miracle teaches including the claimed dyes in the detergent in transparent containers and in the claimed amounts. Thus, in practicing the invention of Miracle one is also inherently protecting enzyme activity as argued by applicant.
Regarding the argument that Miracle does not teach the claimed dyes, Miracle specifically identifies many of the claimed dyes at paragraph 0067, for example Acid Blue 80, Solvent Violet 13, Disperse Violet 28 and Acid Violet 43. It is noted that Miracle discloses more than those specifically identified here (0067).
Regarding the argument that Miracle prefers no dyes are included, Miracle specifically teaches they may be included in the detergents. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." Moreover, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP 2123).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, the claims are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (e.g., amended claim 1 and new claims 16 – 20). 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 RUTH A DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8am - 4pm).
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/RUTH A DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights