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 .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 2019/0127668 A1) in view of Yamagishi et al. (Polymer, 1982, Vol 23, July 1177) as further evidenced by Carboxymethyl Lysine properties (Google A.I. 2025) and similarly evidenced by Matsumura et al. (JP 4089841 B2).
Regarding claims 5-6, 9 and 14, Schmidt teaches a detergent (i.e. cleaning & bleaching) composition; [4, 9, 100, claim 10], for laundry applications (instant claim 9); [4, 9, 100-103, claim 10], comprising a system of chelating agents including lysine carboxylated derivatives such as tetra-acetic acid-lysine; [40], which is same as corboxymethylated lysine. Schmidt teaches (instant claim 14) a peroxy bleaching ingredient such as hydrogen peroxide; [96, 160)
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt does not expressly teach the carboxymethylated polylysine. However Yamagishi et al. teaches a method of measuring chelating properties of dicarboxymethyl polylysine (PDCML) along with other types of chelants wherein their corresponding efficacy is measured by the method of Electric dichroism of cobalt (III) chelate-polyelectrolyte complex wherein the dicarboxylated polylysine has demonstrated a high chelating efficiency; [pages 1177-1181].
Schmidt and Yamagishi are analogous/related art because they are related to applications of carboxymethylated lysine compositions for chelating purposes. At the time before the effective filing date of invention it would have been obvious (for person of ordinary skill in the art) to include (by either adding or substituting) the carboxymethyl -ated polylysine of Yamagishi to Schmidt’s composition as a functional equivalent component with further antibacterial properties as additionally evidence by Google A.I. (as attached) and Matsumura et al. above. Similarly, the prior art of Matsumura teaches a safe cleaning surfactant composition comprising antibacterial polylysine component with a molecular weight of 5000 D; [1-3, 7, 9].
It should be noted that both Schmidt’s and Yamagishi’s carboxymethylated lysine and polylysine are construed as fully modified, with 100% degree of modification in absence of any stated indication to the contrary. Furthermore (instant claim 6) Schmidt does not teach the molecular weight of carboxymethyl polylysine. However, the given degree of polymerization, and thus the molecular weight of a polymer, is construed as a routine experimental laboratory practice, not imparting patentability, which is a function of desired and intended synergistic properties (i.e. viscosity…) of final product.
It would have been obvious, at the time before effective filing date of invention, to modify and adjust the molecular weight of carboxymethyl polylysine with the motivation of adjusting the viscosity of laundry detergent solution. This is further evidenced by applicant’s disclosure (Pg.Pub. 2023/0183613 A1) on paragraph “0033”.
Note that; as to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir), [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claims 7-8, As stated above Schmidt does not, expressly, teach carboxymethyl polylysine, wherein its taught by Yamagishi teaches this polymer as PDCML and it is construed a mixture of both linear and branched structure as a random polymerization product. Regarding ε-linear polylysine it would have been to select the ε-lysine for making of carbpxymethyl polylysine with the motivation of taking advantage of its specific antibacterial properties as taught by Matsumura (paragraph 11) and Google above an well.
Regarding claims 10-11, Schmidt teaches the composition comprising surfactants such as anionic, amphoteric in the amounts of 1-60%; [157]. Schmidt also teaches the tetra-acetic acid derivatives with polylysine in the amounts of 0.1-3 wt.%; [40].
Regarding claims 12-13, Schmidt teaches composition comprising organic and inorganic peroxy bleach components such as percarbonate, which is a precursor for releasing hydrogen peroxide; [96, 160, 162], and it is used for laundry purpose with all types of fabrics such as cotton, wool and synthetic as well; [200].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/02/03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
In response to applicant’s argument (page 6) that; “Moreover, Applicant respectfully notes that Google Gemini (assuming that this is what the Office intended to reference) is an AI tool based on a language learning model. It cannot think or analyze problems. Rather, it merely predicts language and its output cannot be taken as fact. On the contrary, it is not uncommon for Google Gemini to hallucinate facts and responses. Applicant respectfully submits that the use of Google Gemini to establish a substantive rejection
is improper, and therefore further requests withdrawal of the rejection on this basis. Should the Office disagree that the citation to Google Gemini is improper, Applicant respectfully submits that Google Gemini must first be established as prior art consistent with the standards of MPEP 2128. In addition, the underlying sources from which Google Gemini extracts its answers must also be identified, so that Applicant is able to address the context and meaning of the Google Gemini response.”, Please note that examiner’s use of Google AI has not been an intentional application of this tool, but rater a simple search to further verify the antibacterial and disinfectant property of polylysine and no more. I)- The additional information (on Google) usually shows up in old regular Google search as well and the applicant’s objection is not persuasive. II)- The evidentiary part of the above rejection does not constitute the very actual prior arts on which the rejection is based, rather it is a complementary part of the original teachings provided by the prior arts. III)- For further clarification, another evidence is provided by Matsumura which clearly indicates the antibacterial properties of polylysine.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that: “Thus, Schmidt teaches that its compositions are almost entirely limited to two ingredients that are present in an amount of at least 90.001 wt%. Moreover, such compositions are taught to be used as highly concentrated aqueous solutions of chelating agents such as MGDA that are stable at temperatures in the range from zero to 50° C., without the addition of surfactants or organic polymers (see Paragraph [0012]). Thus, Schmidt is directed to an entirely different technical problem and solution compared to the present application. Schmidt is deficient at least for this reason.”, it is noted that; the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that: “Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have considered Yamagishi to modify Schmidt at least because Yamagishi does not relate to detergent or bleaching compounds. Rather, Yamagishi is directed to the use of carboxymethylated poly lysine in a study of metal-polymer interactions. Yamagishi is deficient at least for this reason.”, it should be noted that any chemical compound, in general, is not known for only and only one single chemical property, rather it provides different characteristics under different physical and chemical environment thus being amenable for variety of applications. It is from this point of view that combination of Schmidt and Yamagishi finds an acceptable motivation for the individual artisan in the art. Please not that; it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Relevant art cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached prior art of Tan (CN-106497712-A) a composition for a washing and rising underwears comprising polylysine amino acid derivatives, as another evidentiary reference for antibacterial properties of polylysines. See PTO form 892.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/06/09
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights