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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 21st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2-12 are pending in the application. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 2-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Andersen (WO 2017174769 A2) and Mueller-Cristadoro (WO 2019233795 A1) is withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2-8 and claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughnane (CN 106661511 A) in view of Mueller-Cristadoro (WO 2019233795 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Loughnane discloses cleaning compositions (see Abstract). Loughnane further discloses the detergent may comprise polymer dispersants (see [0153]). Loughnane further teaches the composition may comprise protease (see [0155]). Protease is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable hydrolase. Loughnane further discloses the detergent composition may be used in a method for pretreating or treating stained fabrics, the method comprising contacting the stained fabrics with the cleaning composition of the present invention (see [0016]).
However, Loughnane fails to disclose a polymer as described in the instant claims.
Mueller-Cristadoro discloses a dispersion polymer (see Abstract), which is an alkoxylated polyamidoamine obtained by reacting a carboxylic acid having a total number of carboxylic acid groups (TN) of 3-10, a diamine of the formula H2N-Z-NH2, wherein Z represents a bond or an organic group comprising 1-30 carbon atoms, a ratio of 0.3 to 1 TN moles of diamine per 1 mol of polycarboxylic acid, and further the aloxylating product with at least 0.5 mol of alkylene oxide per 1 mole of primary amino group (see Abstract). Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses a polymer comprised of triethylcitrate and methyldiaminocyclohexane (see Example 1). This polymer is further disclosed to form a polymer through reaction with ethylene oxide (see Polymer A), which has a molecular weight of 1700g/mol (see Polymer A). Further, Mueller-Cristadoro discloses the polyamidoamine may be a dispersant (see Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the dispersant polymer of Mueller-Cristadoro in the detergent composition of Loughnane, as Loughnane discloses the composition may comprise dispersant polymers. Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses dispersants as useful in water and organic solvents. Loughnane discloses the composition may comprise water and solvents as fillers or carriers (see [0305]). Loughnane further discloses low-volatility non-fluorinated organic solvents as suitable solvents (see [0305]). For the above reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the polycarboxylic acid dispersants of Mueller-Cristadoro in the detergent composition of Loughnane.
While Mueller-Cristadoro and Loughnane do not disclose the polymer (A) and the at least one hydrolase (B) each contribute to cleaning performance, Mueller-Cristadoro and Loughnane disclose all of the limitations of claim 10. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirement of the polymer (A) and the at least one hydrolase (B) each contribute to cleaning performance, “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 2 and claim 8, Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses Z is preferably selected from 1-methyl-2,4-diamine cyclohexane (see page 5 line 6).
With regard to claim 3, Loughnane discloses a detergent composition comprising protease (see [0155]).
With regard to claim 4, Loughnane discloses the protease of the invention may be subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62) (see [0156]).
With regard to claim 5, Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses triethylcitrate as a suitable polycarboxylic compound (see Example 1).
With regard to claim 6, Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses 0.3 TN to 1 TN of diamine per 1 mole of polycaroxylic compound (see Abstract).
With regard to claim 7, Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses a polymer with a molecular weight of 1700g/mol (see Polymer A).
With regard to claim 11, Loughnane discloses the composition may comprise fabric colorants (see [0242]). “May” indicates that the fabric colorants are not necessary for the composition and are merely optional. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would determine that a functional composition of Loughnane could be made without fabric colorants.
With regard to claim 12, Loughnane discloses the composition may contain protease at 0.00001-2wt% (see [0155]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughnane (CN 106661511 A) in view of Mueller-Cristadoro (WO 2019233795 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of World Health Organization (WHO) (Nitrilotriacetic acid in Drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality) and Chemical & Engineering News Archive (“DETERGENTS: NTA Is Best.”).
With regard to claim 9, Loughnane and Mueller-Cristadoro disclose all of the limitations of claim 10. Loughnane further discloses the composition may comprise a detergent builder (see [0176]).
However, Loughnane and Mueller-Cristadoro fail to disclose at least one builder component selected from the group consisting of alkali metal salts of aminopolycarboxylic acids and alkali metal salts of (co)polymers of acrylic acid.
Chemical & Engineering News Archive discloses nitrilotriacetic acid as a suitable substitute for phosphate builders in detergents (see paragraph 1). Chemical & Engineering News Archive further discloses nitrilotriacetic acid as being 70% biodegradable, having no genetic effects in animal experiments, and showing no evidence of acute toxicity (see paragraph 1).
WHO discloses the trisodium salt of nitrilotriacetic acid as a builder used to replace phosphates due to its ability to chelate calcium and magnesium ions (see page 6 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the trisodium salt of nitrilotriacetic acid of Chemical & Engineering News Archive and WHO in the composition of Loughnane for the purpose of replacing phosphates as the trisodium salt of nitrilotriacetic acid is 70% biodegradable, has no genetic effects in animal experiments, and shows no evidence of acute toxicity, as disclosed by Chemical & Engineering News Archive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Andersen does not merely teach a general inclusion of dyes or pigments in its detergent compositions. Rather, Andersen teaches a specific application of its dyes and pigments: as fabric hueing agents that deposit onto a fabric and provide tinting.
As Andersen is no longer utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Andersen are moot.
Applicant further argues that Andersen teaches particular amounts of its fabric hueing agents: 0.00003 wt% to about 0.2 wt% (see Page 23, Lines 3-6). These amounts are much lower than the pigments of Mueller-Cristadoro, which are exemplified to be 2.5 wt% or 4.1 wt% relative to the entire composition (see Table 4 and corresponding descriptions). That is, the pigments of Andersen are present in significantly lower amounts compared to Mueller-Cristadoro.
As Andersen is no longer utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Andersen are moot.
Further, Loughnane discloses the composition may contain protease at 0.00001-2wt%.
Applicant further argues that Mueller-Cristadoro does not broadly teach or suggest that its polymer is useful as a dispersant for just any component. Rather, Mueller-Cristadoro is specific to pigment dispersions (see, e.g., Title, Abstract, claims 12-13, and generally throughout).
The dispersants of Mueller-Cristadoro are identical to the claimed dispersants. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant further argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art could not have been motivated to modify Andersen with the "enzyme stabilizer" of Mueller-Cristadoro "for the purpose of stabilizing the enzymes in the composition of Andersen", as asserted by the Office, at least because Mueller- Cristadoro does not teach or suggest any component as an enzyme stabilizer useful for the purpose of stabilizing enzymes.
As stated above, as Andersen is no longer utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Andersen are moot. Further, Loughnane discloses the detergent may comprise polymer dispersants and Mueller-Cristadoro discloses polymer dispersants. Mueller-Cristadoro further discloses dispersants as useful in water and organic solvents. Loughnane discloses the composition may comprise water and solvents as fillers or carriers. Loughnane further discloses low-volatility non-fluorinated organic solvents as suitable solvents.
Applicant further argues that sufficient motivation to combine is also not present, and cannot be present, based on combinability of the cited references. As Andersen is no longer utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Andersen are moot.
As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the dispersant polymer of Mueller-Cristadoro in the detergent composition of Loughnane, as Loughnane discloses the composition may comprise dispersant polymers.
Applicant further argues Mueller- Cristadoro does not teach or suggest any relevant properties or applications of its polymers beyond the ability to disperse pigments in an aqueous or organic solvent. That is, any inherent cleaning properties are entirely unknown in view of Mueller-Cristadoro. Yet that which is unknown cannot be obvious. Mueller-Cristadoro is still further deficient at least for this reason.
The dispersants of Mueller-Cristadoro are identical to the claimed dispersants. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the dispersants of Mueller-Cristadoro would have the claimed fat removal properties.
Conclusion
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 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights