DETAILED ACTION
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 response filed on 5/12/2026 have been received and entered into the case. Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 have been canceled, Claims 25-29 have been added. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 12, and 16-29 are pending, Claims 3, 12 and 16-22 have been withdrawn, and Claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 23-29 have been considered on the merits, insofar as they read on the elected species of fructan degrading enzyme having SEQ ID NO: 18, fructan degrading enzyme having fructan (2,1)-fructosidase activity (EC 3.2.1.153), at least one surfactant, and a nuclease polypeptide having SEQ ID NO: 19. All arguments have been fully considered.
Withdrawn Objections
Objections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claims 1, 6-8 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of Claim 8.
Rejections of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berka et al (US 2010/0064393 A1; 3/11/2010.) in view of Gjermansen et al (WO 2017/059802 A1; 4/13/2017.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments – Claim 8 has been canceled.
Rejections on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-25 and 29 of co-pending Application No. 18/042,251 (referred to as the ‘251 application) in view of Gjermansen et al (WO 2017/059802 A1; 4/13/2017.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “at least one nuclease polypeptide”. Claim 9 recites “the nuclease” on line 1, it is unclear what / which nuclease claim 9 refers to, since there can be more than one nuclease. Applicant is suggested to amend claim 9 to recite “the at least one nuclease” to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 23-29 are directed to a composition comprising a fructan degrading enzyme having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 18, at least one nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity, and at least one detergent component. As disclosed in the instant specification, the claimed fructan degrading enzyme, the at least one nuclease polypeptide, and the at least one detergent component (for example, water), are naturally occurring. There is no indication in the instant specification that the claimed fructan degrading enzyme, the at least one nuclease polypeptide, and the at least one detergent component have any characteristics that are different from the naturally occurring fructan degrading enzyme, the at least one nuclease polypeptide, and the at least one detergent component, respectively. Thus, the claimed fructan degrading enzyme, the at least one nuclease polypeptide, and the at least one detergent component do not have markedly different characteristics from their natural counterparts in their natural state, and are “product of nature” exceptions. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 23-29 are directed to an exception. Claim 6 recites “wherein” clause, which would not materially change the fructan degrading enzyme from its natural state. Claim 7 recites at least one surfactant. It was well-known in the art that surfactants can be naturally occurring, for example, glucosides. Therefore, the claims as a whole adds nothing significantly more to the “product of nature” itself. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 23-29 do not qualify as eligible subject matter, and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berka et al (US 2010/0064393 A1; 3/11/2010.) in view of Gjermansen et al (WO 2017/059802 A1; 4/13/2017.).
The instant claims recite a composition comprising a GH32 fructan degrading enzyme, at least one nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity, and at least one detergent component, wherein the fructan degrading enzyme has fructan degrading activity and at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 18.
Berka teaches a biological substance comprises an amino acid sequence having SEQ ID NO: 8168 (the fructan degrading enzyme has at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 18) (para 0084-0085, also see Search results filed on 01/29/2026; 20260129_162406_us-17-913-103-18.rag; Result 5 – screen shot below), wherein the proteases from Bacillus licheniformis are used in the detergent industry (para 0008). Since Berka’s SEQ ID NO: 8168 read on the claimed fructan degrading enzyme, Berka’s SEQ ID NO: 8168 has fructan (2,1)-fructosidase activity.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
777
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Berka does not teach the claimed nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity (claims 1, 9 and 24), at least one detergent component (claim 1), and at least one surfactant (claim 7).
However, Berka does teach the claimed fructan degrading enzyme is used in the detergent industry. Gjermansen teaches a detergent composition (Abstract, p.3 line 33) comprising a polypeptide shown in SEQ ID NO: 21 (100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 19) (p.4 line 14, also see Search results filed on 01/29/2026; 20260129_162406_us-17-913-103-19.rag; Result 1 – screen shot below). The composition comprises detergent adjunct ingredient including surfactants, builders, enzymes, and etc. (p.13 line 12-18 & 30-35).
PNG
media_image3.png
762
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
430
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity, at least one detergent component, and at least one surfactant, since Berka discloses that the claimed fructan degrading enzyme is used in the detergent industry, and Gjermansen discloses that the claimed nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity, detergent components, and surfactants are incorporate into a detergent / cleaning composition. Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the claimed fructan degrading enzyme with the claimed nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity, detergent components, and surfactants for the same purpose – obtaining a detergent / cleaning composition. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to incorporate the claimed nuclease polypeptide having DNase or RNase activity, at least one detergent component, and at least one surfactant, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that each of claims 3 and 16-21 depends from claim 1 and requires an additional sequence motif limitation present in the selected species of SEQ ID NO: 18 (e.g., sequences ANWMNDPN, HWGH, and AYSNDK ofSEQ ID NO: 18 satisfy the limitations recited in claim 3 and/or 16-20). In other words, claims 3 and 16-20 read on the selected species of SEQ ID NO: 18. Likewise, claim 21 reads on SEQ ID NO: 18 by requiring a GH32C domain.
These arguments are not found persuasive because Restriction Requirement filed on 10/2/2025 required applicant to elect a single discrete and disclosed species of a fructan degrading enzyme.
Applicant argues that the complementary activities of GH32 fructan degrading enzyme and a nuclease are more than additive (i.e., synergistic) in removal of biofilm, as shown in Table 2 of the specification. The effect is supported by the reported wash assay because the combination deltas are far above the apparent additive expectation.
These arguments are not found persuasive because in Table 2 of the specification, SEQ ID NO: 18 is used as enzyme in the wash assay, and not a fructan degrading enzyme having fructan degrading activity and at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 18 as claimed in the rejected claim 1. In addition, Table 2 shows the wash performance of fructan degrading enzymes compare to blank, and not the combined components as claimed in the rejected claim 1 compare to each individual component in order to demonstrate a synergistic effect. Finally, the disclosed synergistic effect in Table 2 is obtained using a combination of a fructanase and a low dose of DNase, which is not commensurate in scope with the rejected claims.
Applicant argues that Berka fails to describe any fructan degrading enzyme “used in the detergent industry”.
These arguments are not found persuasive because amended claims do not require a cleaning or detergent composition. In addition, Berka does teach Bacillus licheniformis species has been used for decades in the manufacture of industrial enzymes, and enzymes from Bacillus licheniformis are used in the detergent industry (para 0007-0008), which discloses that enzymes have been used in detergents for decades. And Gjermansen also discloses that enzymes have been used in the detergent art (p.13 para 3, for example).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. 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.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights