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 and 7-14 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 Matsumura et al. (JP 4089841 B2).
Regarding claims 5, 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].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 5, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not provide a teaching of the k-value and its inter-relation to molecular weight of carboxymethylated poly lysine based on disclosure of the applicant, which is the reason for allowability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/08/03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 5-6) regarding the use of Google Gemini as evidentiary reference is considered and the reference is withdrawn.
In response to the argument (last parag. of pg. 6 & 1st parag. pg. 7) “Applicant respectfully disagrees. In contrast to the assertions of the Office, Schmidt does not teach or suggest "applications of carboxymethylated lysine compositions for chelating purposes." Rather, Schmidt teaches that its distinct methyl glycine diacetic acid (MGDA) component serves as a chelating agent. For example, Schmidt teaches, "It was therefore the objective of the present invention to provide 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]). In addition, Schmidt only mentions lysine.once in passing: "In one embodiment of the present invention, inventive mixtures may additionally contain 0.1 to 3% by weight with respect to the sum of (A) and (B), of as it was explained previously the tetraacetic acid derivative of lysine, or 0.1 to 3% by weight of the mono-acetate of praline" (see Paragraph [0040]). Notably, the tetraacetic acid derivative of lysine is noted as a further, optional component in Schmidt. And this limited teaching does not indicate a purpose for including the tetraacetic acid derivative of lysine. Thus, the Office is incorrect that Schmidt and Yamagishi are both related to applications of carboxy-methylated lysine compositions for chelating purposes.”, it is noted that; I)- applicant’s interpretation of the prior art is different than the examiner’s. Applicant readily ignores the fact of polylysine’s MGDA derivative (by Yamagishi) as being not the only chelating agent under consideration, but it appears to be more effective than the other ones including dicarboxymethyl polylysine (PDCML). In short PDCML may not be a preferred chelating agent but its obvious chelating properties in undeniable. Note that polylysine by itself is more of an antibacterial agent than a chelating one and its functionalization with chelating groups provides the bonding properties acting as a chelator. II)- Furthermore, there are many prior arts in addition of those applied by the Office that renders the instant claims obvious and the arguments moot. For further information, please see the Hollister et al. CN 1192160 and Radvany WO 2020/027927 A (Parg. 39) on chelating application of poly lysine derivatives. III)- It is important to consider that: A reference must be considered in its entirety, and it is well settled that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 570 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). Rather, a reference is relevant for all that it contains. In re Heck, 669 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
IV)- In response to the above-mentioned: “Notably, the sum of (A) and (B), of as it was explained previously the tetraacetic acid derivative of lysine is noted as a further, optional component in Schmidt. And this limited teaching does not indicate a purpose for including the tetraacetic acid derivative of lysine.”,. In response, it is noted that the above features are not related to the fact of Schmidt’s combination with Yamagishi as far as addition of PDCML is concerned. Note that Schmidt’s composition is an open ended “comprising” one which allows (Claim 1) for any related combination in absence of adversely affecting its composition. In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that: “Here, Schmidt does not teach or suggest "applications of carboxymethyl -lated lysine compositions for chelating purposes" as asserted by the Office. And as previously described, Schmidt and Yamagishi are directed to different technical problems and solutions. Briefly, although Yamagishi is indeed directed to measuring chelation, the chelation at issue is for bis-2-(2-pyridylazo)-l-naphthol Co(III) (see Abstract). This is entirely different from the laundry applications of Schmidt. Consequently, Schmidt and Yamagishi are not analogous art. Schmidt and Yamagishi are deficient at least for this reason.”, I)- It is true that Schmidt does not, expressly, teach a carboxymethylated derivative of polylysine as a chelating agent, however such property is a known fact (e.g. Yamagishi) to a person of ordinary skill in the field of chemical application(s) and thus combination of Schmidt and Yamagishi (as long as the integrity of Schmidt’s compound is not affected) is a matter of laboratory experimentation which would not impart patentability. II)- Furthermore, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). And; ““[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). III)- Regarding the lack of motivation for combination of Schmidt and Yamagishi, please note 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). In this case, are mainly related as applications of polylysine derivatives (carboxylated).with chelating properties and no more.
This action is Non-Final.
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
2026/08/16
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights