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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2023 and 08/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "or even" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "or even" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "or even" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lipase" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 12 depends, does not recite lipase.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "or even" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 5, 8, 10, and 12, respectively recite the broad recitation “at least 60% sequence identity”, and the claim also recites several narrower statements of the range. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callisen et al. (WO 2014090940 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Callisen et al. discloses a method for removing a stain on a textile (p. 1 line 12-p. 2 line 7, p. 21 lines 25-26), the method comprising contacting the textile with a wash liquor (p. 23 line 33-p. 24 line 12, p. 39 lines 27-36), wherein the wash liquor comprises lipoxygenase (reads on a polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity) (p. 1 line 12-p. 2 line 7, p. 23 line 33-p. 24 line 12, p. 39 lines 27-36).
Callisen et al. does not disclose wherein the wash liquor further comprises additional detergent; however, this fulfills the limitation of further comprising “0 g detergent/L wash liquor” which falls within the claim range.
As to the optional limitations (“optionally one or more polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as linoleic acid, and optionally one or more additional enzymes”), these do not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is a soybean lipoxygenase (p. 13 line 20).
Regarding claim 4, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is lipoxygenase EC 1.13.11.12 (p. 13 lines 9-10), which is synonymous for soybean lipoxygenase 1 (LOX-1) (see UniProt entry for EC 1.13.11.12, which has been added to the prosecution history record as an evidentiary reference).
Regarding claim 5, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the lipoxygenase (polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity) comprises or consists of the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3 (p. 13 lines 27-29), which has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (Applicant’s own specification as-filed confirms this, see p. 1 lines 27-29; see also BLAST alignment results below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1959
1902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FASTA sequence for SEQ ID NO: 3 of WO 2014090940 A1 obtained from lens.org
PNG
media_image2.png
2374
1902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BLAST alignment SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application to SEQ ID NO: 3 of WO 2014090940 A1: 100% identity
Regarding claim 6, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the lipoxygenase (polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity) is used in combination with at least one additional enzyme comprising lipase (p. 29 lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 7, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the lipoxygenase (polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity) is used in combination with a lipase (p. 29 lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 9, Callisen et al. discloses a detergent composition comprising a lipoxygenase (p. 2 lines 6-7, p. 23 lines 33-35) and one or more surfactants including AEO, APG, or a combination thereof (reads on one or more plant based biosurfactants, consistent with Applicant’s specification) (p. 24 line 22-p. 25 line 24).
As to the optional limitations (“optionally one or more polyunsaturated fatty acids and optionally at least one additional enzyme”), these do not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Nonetheless, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the composition comprises at least one additional enzyme (p. 29 lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 10, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the lipoxygenase comprises or consists of the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3 (p. 13 lines 27-29), which has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (Applicant’s own specification as-filed confirms this, see p. 1 lines 27-29; see also BLAST alignment results below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1959
1902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FASTA sequence for SEQ ID NO: 3 of WO 2014090940 A1 obtained from lens.org
PNG
media_image2.png
2374
1902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BLAST alignment SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application to SEQ ID NO: 3 of WO 2014090940 A1: 100% identity
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to a further specification of the at least one additional enzyme. However, claim 9, from which claim 11 depends, recites the at least one additional enzyme as being an optional component, and therefore the prior art need not disclose this feature to anticipate the claim. Nonetheless, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the at least one additional enzyme is lipase (p. 29 lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 12, the claim appears to be directed to a further specification of the at least one additional enzyme. However, claim 9, from which claim 12 depends, recites the at least one additional enzyme as being an optional component, and therefore the prior art need not disclose this feature to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Callisen et al. discloses a method for bleaching a stain on a textile (p. 1 line 12-p. 2 line 7, p. 3 lines 11-15, p. 21 lines 25-26, p. 27 lines 23-24) comprising contacting the stain with a detergent composition (p. 1 lines 31-34, p. 23 lines 33-35) comprising a lipoxygenase (p. 2 lines 6-7, p. 23 lines 33-35) and one or more surfactants including AEO, APG, or a combination thereof (reads on one or more plant based biosurfactants, consistent with Applicant’s specification) (p. 24 line 22-p. 25 line 24).
As to the optional limitations (“optionally one or more polyunsaturated fatty acids and optionally at least one additional enzyme”), these do not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Nonetheless, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the composition comprises at least one additional enzyme (p. 29 lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 15, Callisen et al. discloses wherein the contacting is performed under wash conditions (col. 2 lines 12-32).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deinhammer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0205628).
Regarding claim 1, Deinhammer et al. discloses a method for removing a stain on textile (para. 333-340), the method comprising contacting the textile with a wash liquor (Example 16, para. 333-337), wherein the wash liquor comprises an enzyme cocktail comprising lipase and further comprises 2.5 g detergent/L wash liquor (falls within the claim range) (para. 337). As to the optional limitations (“optionally one or more polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as linoleic acid, and optionally one or more additional enzymes”), these do not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Deinhammer et al. does not expressly teach that the enzyme blend used in Example 16 comprises a polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity.
However, Deinhammer et al. is directed towards reducing formulation costs by replacing detergent components with enzymes (para. 21) and discloses that “in most cases it is beneficial to combine two or more enzymes to be able to partly replace or fully replace one or more of the surfactants, builders, polymers and bleaches” (para. 106). Specifically, Deinhammer et al. discloses combining lipase with an oxidoreductase (para. 109), wherein the oxidoreductase may be lipoxygenase (para. 98-99). The lipoxygenase can serve to replace the bleaching and/or dye transfer inhibition functionality of detergent (para. 98-102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Deinhammer et al. such that the enzyme cocktail comprises, in combination with the lipase, lipoxygenase (reads on a polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity), as Deinhammer et al. clearly envisions combining lipase and lipoxygenase in the method, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to add lipoxygenase to achieve bleaching and/or dye transfer inhibition properties to improve textile treatment.
Regarding claim 2, Deinhammer et al. discloses wherein the wash liquor comprises 2.5 g detergent/L wash liquor (falls within the claim range), as set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Deinhammer et al. teaches the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity, as set forth above, wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is lipoxygenase (EC 1.13.11.12) (para. 99), which is soybean lipoxygenase (see UniProt entry for EC 1.13.11.12, which has been added to the prosecution history record as an evidentiary reference).
Regarding claim 4, Deinhammer et al. teaches the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity, as set forth above, wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is lipoxygenase (EC 1.13.11.12) (para. 99), which is synonymous for soybean lipoxygenase 1 (LOX-1) (see UniProt entry for EC 1.13.11.12, which has been added to the prosecution history record as an evidentiary reference).
Regarding claim 5, Deinhammer et al. teaches the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity, as set forth above, wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is lipoxygenase (EC 1.13.11.12) (para. 99).
Although Deinhammer et al. does not include a sequence ID, the UniProt entry for EC 1.13.11.12, which has been added to the prosecution history record as an evidentiary reference, lists the sequence, and the sequence has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (see BLAST alignment search below). Therefore, Deinhammer et al. necessarily meets the limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
2416
1788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
BLAST alignment SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application to EC 1.13.11.12: 100% identity
Regarding claim 6, Deinhammer et al. teaches wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is used in combination with lipase, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Deinhammer et al. teaches wherein the polypeptide having lipoxygenase activity is used in combination with lipase, as set forth above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deinhammer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0205628) in view of Baltsen (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0153356).
Regarding claim 8, Deinhammer et al. discloses the lipase, as set forth above.
Deinhammer et al. does not expressly teach wherein the lipase has at least 60% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2.
Baltsen discloses a composition for washing a laundry item (para. 2-7) comprising a lipase having at least 95% sequence identity to a sequence identified as SEQ ID NO: 2 (para. 68), wherein a composition comprising this particular lipase performs “nicely” when treating laundry (Example 1, para. 360-379).
The lipase having SEQ ID NO: 2 of Baltsen (2019/0153356 is a publication of application no. 15/576051) is a 100% match to SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant application (see ABSS search result below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1010
1330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
ABSS search of SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant application: SEQ ID NO: 2 of US 15/576051 is 100% match
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lipase disclosed by Deinhammer et al. to have 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, as Baltsen discloses that a lipase having this sequence was known in the art to deliver good results when used to launder clothing, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particular lipase recognized in the art to be effective in a method of laundering textiles.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callisen et al. (WO 2014090940 A1) (already of record) in view of Baltsen (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0153356).
Regarding claim 8, Callisen et al. discloses the lipase, as set forth above.
Deinhammer et al. does not expressly teach wherein the lipase has at least 60% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2.
Baltsen discloses a composition for washing a laundry item (para. 2-7) comprising a lipase having at least 95% sequence identity to a sequence identified as SEQ ID NO: 2 (para. 68), wherein a composition comprising this particular lipase performs “nicely” when treating laundry (Example 1, para. 360-379).
The lipase having SEQ ID NO: 2 of Baltsen (2019/0153356 is a publication of application no. 15/576051) is a 100% match to SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant application (see ABSS search result below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1010
1330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
ABSS search of SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant application: SEQ ID NO: 2 of US 15/576051 is 100% match
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lipase disclosed by Callisen et al. to have 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, as Baltsen discloses that a lipase having this sequence was known in the art to deliver good results when used to launder clothing, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particular lipase recognized in the art to be effective in a method of laundering textiles.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,001 in view of Schulz et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0362632).
Regarding claim 9, each of independent claims 4 and 13, respectively, of the reference patent recite a detergent composition comprising a lipoxygenase and a surfactant. As to the optional limitations (“optionally one or more polyunsaturated fatty acids and optionally at least one additional enzyme”), these do not introduce a patentable distinction over the claims of the reference patent.
The reference patent claims are silent as to the surfactant being a biosurfactant selected from the group consisting of rhamnolipid, sophorolipid and plant based biosurfactants, such as SLS, APG, AEO and SLES.
Schulz et al. discloses that it was known in the art of cleaning detergent compositions to use biosurfactants rather than other surfactants because biosurfactants can be sustainably produced on a large scale (para. 2-5). Schulz et al. discloses that such biosurfactants include rhamnolipids and sophorolipids (para. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surfactant recited in each of claims 4 and 13, respectively, of the reference patent to comprise rhamnolipids or sophorolipids, based on the teachings of Schulz et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particular surfactant recognized in the art to offer the advantage of sustainable production on a large scale.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,264,954 in view of Schulz et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0362632).
Regarding claim 9, claim 13 of the reference patent recite a detergent composition comprising a lipoxygenase and a surfactant. As to the optional limitations (“optionally one or more polyunsaturated fatty acids and optionally at least one additional enzyme”), these do not introduce a patentable distinction over the claims of the reference patent.
The reference patent claim is silent as to the surfactant being a biosurfactant selected from the group consisting of rhamnolipid, sophorolipid and plant based biosurfactants, such as SLS, APG, AEO and SLES.
Schulz et al. discloses that it was known in the art of cleaning detergent compositions to use biosurfactants rather than other surfactants because biosurfactants can be sustainably produced on a large scale (para. 2-5). Schulz et al. discloses that such biosurfactants include rhamnolipids and sophorolipids (para. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surfactant recited in claim 13 of the reference patent to comprise rhamnolipids or sophorolipids, based on the teachings of Schulz et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particular surfactant recognized in the art to offer the advantage of sustainable production on a large scale.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lant et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0264140) is directed to a detergent composition containing lipoxygenase and a method of contacting a textile with the detergent in a washing machine such that the concentration of the detergent in the wash liquor is 0g/L to 5g/L.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799