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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 8, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment and reply filed February 13, 2026 have been entered into the case. Claim 15 is canceled; claim 21 is added; claims 1 – 3, 6 – 14 and 16 – 21 are pending and have been considered on the merits. All arguments have been fully considered.
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, 17 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 13 – 14, 18 – 21, 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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977) in view of Reinoso Garcia et al. (WO 2018/197249, cited by US 2020/0299624).
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 16, Miracle does not teach the dye may be Acid Green 25. However, the reference states that any known dyes in the art can be included in the compositions, such as anthraquinones (0062 – 0063). At the time the claims were filed, the Acid Green 25 was a well known dye used in laundry detergents. In support, Reinoso Garcia teaches laundry detergents including Acid Green 25 (0042). Thus, at the time the claims were filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Acid Green 25 in the laundry detergent of Miracle as a matter of routine practice 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Miracle does not teach or suggest protecting enzyme activity; that there is no disclosure that the claimed dyes show any benefit compared to the other dyes; and that while some dyes named have an anthraquinone chromophore as claimed, they are listed within over 300 dyes, most of which do not have the claimed specific structure. Applicant further argues that the claimed composition in a container exhibits a surprising result in that 0.00005 - 0.02% of the claimed dye significantly reduces loss of amylase and protease activity upon exposure to sunlight. Applicant argues the supporting references do not cure these deficiencies; and do not teach Acid Green 25 (claim 16).
Regarding the arguments that the prior art does not recognize the effects of the dye on the enzymes, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (MPEP 2144 (IV)). In this case, the prior art teaches the claimed well known and used dyes in laundry detergent compositions, combined with the claimed enzymes and claimed surfactants, and in the claimed amounts. Absent objective evidence of an unexpected result or advantage, the claims remain obvious over the prior art.
Regarding the various dyes, they are all well known and used dyes in detergent that are readily substitutable as evidenced by the cited references. In this regard, it would have been obvious to use any of the well known and used dyes in the laundry detergent compositions as a matter of routine practice and with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining an effective laundry detergent composition.
Regarding applicant's argument of surprising results, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 2145 (1)). Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results (MPEP 716.01 (c)(I)). In addition, it is noted that the examples are drawn to Acid Green 25 and a transparent container only and not the full scope of the claimed invention. As such, without objective evidence of an unexpected result made of record, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the supporting references, they are relied upon to show that the claimed container materials were well know and used in the art as a matter of routine practice; and that the claimed pH was a common range in which detergents are active.
Regarding the argument that the prior art does not teach the use of Acid Green 25, this argument is not persuasive in light of the new rejections above.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, the claims are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
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