DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s claim listing filed May 11, 2026 is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1, 2, 8-12, 15, and 16, drawn to a tannase variant and a washing or cleaning agent, in the reply filed May 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the following grounds: all claims depend from claim 1 and any search and consideration is limited by claim 1; and there exists considerable overlapping subject matter among the inventions and a search for one invention would overlap with the search for the others and thus, there is no search burden.
This is not found persuasive because at least for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action (paragraph bridging pp. 4-5 and second full paragraph at p. 5), a co-extensive search and examination of the claims of Groups I-IV would require a serious search and examination burden because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). For example, the claims of the inventions of Groups II, III, and IV recite limitations that are not recited in the claims of the elected invention of Group I and a separate search is required for each of the inventions of Groups I, II, III, and IV.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-7, 13, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) to German application no. 10 2022 209 245.7, filed September 6, 2022. A certified copy of the foreign priority document has been filed in this application on October 27, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 5, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to in the recitation of “The agent” and in the interest of improving claim form and consistency with claims 9-12, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “The washing or cleaning agent.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite in the recitation of “wherein the amino acid sequence comprises a single or multiple conservative amino acid substitution(s), a fragmentation, a deletion, an insertion, substitution mutagenesis, or combinations thereof” because there is no recited reference sequence such that one of skill in the art can determine whether or not the tannase variant has “a single or multiple conservative amino acid substitution(s), a fragmentation, a deletion, an insertion, substitution mutagenesis, or combinations thereof.” In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider an amendment to insert “as compared to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” following “combinations thereof” in claim 2.
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are indefinite in the recitation of “substantially free of” in the phrases “substantially free from boron-containing compounds,” “substantially free from phosphonate-containing compounds,” and “substantially free from phosphate-containing compounds.” The term "substantially" is a term of approximation (see MPEP 2173.05(b).III.D) and while the specification describes "substantially free of" as meaning that the composition or the agent contains less than 2 wt.%, preferably less than 1 wt.%, more preferably less than 0.5 wt.%, and particularly preferably less than 0.1 wt.%, of the corresponding substance, based on the total weight of the composition/agent (paragraph [0021]), given the disclosed preferences in the description of "substantially free of," it is unclear as to the wt.% of the recited compounds that is/are intended as being encompassed by “substantially free of.” In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider amending claims 9, 11, and 12 to delete the term “substantially.”
Claims 10 and 16 are indefinite in the recitation of "approximately" in the phrases “a pH ranging from approximately 8 to approximately 9” and “a temperature ranging from approximately 20oC to approximately 40oC.” The term “approximately” is a term of approximation (see MPEP 2173.05(b).III.A) and while the specification describes "approximately" as referring to the corresponding numerical value ±10%, preferably ±5%. (paragraph [0020]), given the disclosed preference in the description of "approximately," it is unclear as to approximation(s) of the recited numerical values that is/are intended as being encompassed by “approximately.” In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider amending claims 10 and 16 to delete the term “approximately.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the improved cleaning performance.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of advancing prosecution, applicant may consider amending claim 16 to depend from claim 15.
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, 2, 8-12, 15, and 16 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. Applicant’s attention is directed to the "Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products”, released on December 16, 2014.
Claims 1 and 2
Claim Interpretation: Claim 1 is drawn to a tannase variant comprising an amino acid sequence having a sequence identity ranging from 70% to 99.9% to the amino acid sequence given in SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length.
Claim 2 is drawn to the tannase variant of claim 1, wherein the amino acid sequence comprises a single or multiple conservative amino acid substitution(s), a fragmentation, a deletion, an insertion, substitution mutagenesis, or combinations thereof.
GenPept Database Accession Number WP_141595141 (July 2019, 1 page; cited on the IDS filed September 5, 2023) and GenPept Database Accession Number WP_409000186 (December 2024, 1 page; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) each discloses a polypeptide from Streptomyces ipomoeae annotated as a tannase and comprising an amino acid sequence that has at least 99% sequence identity but less than 99.9% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 using BLAST default parameters (see Appendices A and B for sequence alignments).
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1 and 2 encompass a naturally-occurring tannase.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claims are drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite a naturally occurring polypeptide, which is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). The tannase variant of claims 1 and 2 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, the polypeptide of claims 1 and 2 is directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claim only recites the product of nature, without more and does not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 8-12, 15, and 16
Claims 8-12, 15, and 16 are drawn to a washing or cleaning agent comprising:
at least one tannase variant according to claim 1, wherein the concentration of the at least one tannase variant ranges from 0.00005 to 15 wt. % based on active protein.
The recitation of "washing or cleaning” in the preamble of claim 8 is interpreted as an intended use or purpose of the claimed agent and does not further limit the structure and/or function of the claimed agent.
Claim 9 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is substantially free from boron-containing compounds.
Claim 10 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent has a pH ranging from approximately 8 to approximately 9.
Claim 11 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is substantially free from phosphonate-containing compounds.
Claim 12 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is substantially free from phosphate-containing compounds.
Claim 15 is drawn to the agent according to claim 8, wherein the agent has an improved cleaning performance compared to the same agent in the absence of the tannase variant on one or more tannase-sensitive stains selected from a bleachable stain, a tannin-containing stain, a tannin-derivative-containing stain, or combinations thereof.
Claim 16 is drawn to the agent according to claim 8, wherein the agent has the improved cleaning performance at a temperature ranging from approximately 20° C. to approximately 40° C.
Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the agent of claims 8-12, 15, and 16 is interpreted as encompassing a combination of naturally-occurring components, e.g., the recited tannase and water.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claims are drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an agent, which is interpreted as comprising a combination of naturally occurring components and is considered to be a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (a natural product). There is no evidence of record of a naturally occurring counterpart to the claimed composition, so the composition is compared to the individual components as they occur in nature (see MPEP 2106.04(c).II.A). There is no indication in the specification or evidence of record that the individual components have any characteristics (structural, functional, or otherwise) that are different from the corresponding individual components as each occurs in nature. Furthermore, there is no indication in the specification or evidence of record that combining these components changes the structure, function, or other properties of the naturally occurring components. In other words, the overall combination of components does not render the resulting agent different from each of the individual components. Thus, the washing or cleaning agent of claims 8-12, 15, and 16 is not considered to have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is considered to be a “product of nature” exception. Accordingly, the agent of claims 8-12, 15, and 16 is directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recite the products of nature, without more and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. For these reasons the claim is rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for a tannase variant having tannase activity and comprising an amino acid sequence having a sequence identity ranging from 70% to 99.9% to the amino acid sequence given in SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length, does not reasonably provide enablement for all tannase variants as encompassed by the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
“The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976). Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands (858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) as follows: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. See MPEP § 2164.01(a). The Factors most relevant to the instant rejection are addressed in detail below.
The nature of the invention: According to the specification, “[t]here is therefore a need for washing and cleaning agents, in particular liquid washing and cleaning agents, in particular those without bleaching agents and/or without phosphonates and/or phosphates, to be further developed such that they are improved in regard to the removal of bleachable stains caused in particular by fruits, fruit juices, nuts, legumes, tea, coffee, wine, cocoa or chocolate, preferably tannin-containing stains” (paragraph [0008]) and “[s]urprisingly, it has been found that a previously unknown tannase from Streptomyces ipomoeae, or tannases sufficiently similar to this (in relation to the sequence identity), is particularly suitable for use in washing or cleaning agents, in particular liquid washing or cleaning agents, since it removes a broad spectrum of bleachable and/or tannin-containing stains, which are in particular caused by fruits, fruit juices, nuts, legumes, tea, coffee, wine, cocoa or chocolate, under standard washing conditions” (paragraph [0009]).
The breadth of the claims: The claims recite a tannase variant comprising an amino acid sequence having a sequence identity ranging from 70% to 99.9% to the amino acid sequence given in SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length.
The function of the recited tannase variant is interpreted as being unlimited and encompassing, e.g., non-functional variants and variants that have acquired an activity other than tannase enzymatic activity.
The state of the prior art; The level of one of ordinary skill; and The level of predictability in the art: According to MPEP 2164.03, “…what is known in the art provides evidence as to the question of predictability.” “[I]f one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, then there is lack of predictability in the art.”
As noted above, the function of the recited tannase variant is interpreted as being unlimited. Regarding the level of skill and knowledge in the art of amino acid modification, the reference of Singh et al. (Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 18:1-11, 2017; cited on the attached Form PTO-892) reviews various protein engineering methods and discloses that despite the availability of an ever-growing database of protein structures and highly sophisticated computational algorithms, protein engineering is still limited by the incomplete understanding of protein functions, folding, flexibility, and conformational changes (see p. 7, column 1, top).
The unpredictability associated with amino acid modification is exemplified by the reference of Zhang et al. (Structure 26:1474-1485, 2018; cited on the attached Form PTO-892), which discloses that even a mutation that was predicted to be benign unexpectedly caused significant structural changes and effects on the function of a polypeptide (p. 1475, column 1).
The amount of direction provided by the inventor; The existence of working examples: The specification discloses the working example of a tannase comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, which has tannase activity. The specification fails to provide direction or guidance for using those tannase variants that are non-functional or have acquired an activity other than tannase activity.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: While methods of modifying the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide were known at the time of the invention, it was not routine in the art to make and identify a use for all tannase variants as encompassed by the claims, particularly those tannase variants that are non-functional or have lost tannase activity and have acquired a new activity.
In view of the overly broad scope of the claims, the lack of guidance and working examples provided in the specification, the high level of unpredictability as evidenced by the prior art, and the amount of experimentation required to make and use all tannase variants as recited in the claims, undue experimentation would be necessary for a skilled artisan to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention. Applicants have not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement (In re Fisher, 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA 1970)). Without sufficient guidance, determination of having the desired biological characteristics is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988).
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GenPept Database Accession Number WP_141595141 (July 2019, 1 page; cited on the IDS filed September 5, 2023; hereafter “GenPept WP_141595141”).
Claims 1 and 2 are drawn to a tannase variant comprising an amino acid sequence having a sequence identity ranging from 70% to 99.9% to the amino acid sequence given in SEQ ID NO:1 over its entire length.
Regarding instant claim 1, GenPept WP_141595141 discloses a polypeptide from Streptomyces ipomoeae annotated as a tannase and comprising an amino acid sequence that has at least 99% sequence identity but less than 99.9% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 using BLAST default parameters (see Appendix A for sequence alignment).
Regarding instant claim 2, the sequence of GenPept WP_141595141 has two amino acid substitutions at positions 507 and 508 relative to the amino acid sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (see Appendix A).
Therefore, GenPept WP_141595141 anticipates claims 1 and 2 as written.
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 8, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf, U. (DE 1944904 A1; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Wolf”) and Gürkök, S. (International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 10:75-81, 2019; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Gürkök”). Reference is made to a machine translation of Wolf (cited on the attached Form PTO-892).
Claims 8, 15, and 16 are drawn to a washing or cleaning agent comprising:
at least one tannase variant according to claim 1, wherein the concentration of the at least one tannase variant ranges from 0.00005 to 15 wt. % based on active protein.
The relevant teachings of GenPept WP_141595141 as applied to claims 1 and 2 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claim 8, GenPept WP_141595141 does not teach or suggest a washing or cleaning agent comprising from 0.00005 to 15 wt. % of the tannase.
Wolf teaches the previously known methods for cleaning dishes with silicate, phosphate and perborate-containing detergents do not remove, or only insufficiently remove, the soiling caused by tea (translation at paragraph [0002]) and recommends the application of an enzyme that is able to break down the residues of the tea, which largely consist of tannins, especially tannase (translation at paragraph [0006]). Wolf teaches the enzyme can be added in solid form to a detergent to remove contamination of laundry with tea or other tannin-based residues (paragraph [0009]).
Gürkök teaches detergents in liquid or solid form contain enzymes ranging from 0.2% to 2% (p. 77, column 2, middle) and teaches the general composition of an enzyme detergent including 1% enzyme (p. 76, Table 1). Although Gürkök does not expressly teach the range of 0.00005 to 15 wt. %, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05.I).
In view of the combined teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as a component in a detergent. One would have been motivated and would have expected success to do so because GenPept WP_141595141 taught a tannase, Wolf recommended the application of a tannase to break down the residues of tea and taught including tannase in a detergent to remove contamination of laundry with tea or other tannin-based residues, and Gürkök taught detergents in liquid or solid form contain enzymes ranging from 0.2% to 2%.
Regarding instant claim 10, Gürkök teaches enzymes used in detergents should be stable and perform effectively at a wide alkaline pH (p. 77, column 2). Gürkök teaches factors considered for detergent-compatible enzymes including washing conditions of pH 8-11 (p. 80, column 2). Wolf teaches tannase is a detergent enzyme (paragraph [0006]) and teaches methods for stabilizing the enzyme (paragraph [0008]). As such, it would have been obvious for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to have a pH encompassed by the range of approximately 8 to approximately 9.
Regarding instant claim 15, in view of the combined teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök and particularly the teachings of Wolf, one would have reasonably expected that a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to have an improved cleaning performance compared to the same detergent in the absence of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 on one or more tannase-sensitive stains selected from a bleachable stain, a tannin-containing stain, a tannin-derivative-containing stain, or combinations thereof.
Regarding instant claim 16, Gürkök teaches enzymes used in detergents should be stable and perform effectively at a wide variety of temperatures (p. 77, column 2) and Gürkök teaches factors considered for detergent-compatible enzymes including washing temperatures of 30-60°C (p. 80, column 2). Wolf teaches tannase is a detergent enzyme (paragraph [0006]) and teaches methods for stabilizing the enzyme (paragraph [0008]). As such, it would have been obvious for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to improve cleaning performance at a temperature encompassed by the range of approximately 20°C to approximately 40°C.
Therefore, the washing or cleaning agent of claims 8, 10, 15, and 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf and Gürkök as applied to claims 8, 10, 15, and 16 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (WO 2021/121394 A1; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Liu”).
Claim 9 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is substantially free from boron-containing compounds.
The relevant teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claim 9, the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök does not teach or suggest absence of boron-containing compounds.
Liu teaches that it is important that liquid enzyme products are sufficiently stable to maintain specifications, even when they reach customers a long time after production (p. 1, lines 8-13). Liu teaches liquid enzyme formulations with aliphatic 1,2-diols additives, which improve enzyme stability, physical stability, solubility of enzyme protein, and microbial stability, and are substantially free of commonly used boron-based enzyme stabilizers (p. 1, line 36 to p. 2, line 9) such as boric acid (p. 2, lines 13-14), i.e., borate, which are generally undesirable and has been classified as reprotoxic (p. 2, lines 8-9). Liu teaches the liquid enzyme compositions are used for delivering enzyme into detergent production (p. 3, lines 1-2).
In view of the teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to be substantially free of borate-containing compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because Liu taught boron-based enzyme stabilizers are generally undesirable and have been classified as reprotoxic, and taught liquid enzyme formulations that are substantially free of commonly used boron-based enzyme stabilizers.
Therefore, the washing or cleaning agent of claim 9 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GenPept WP_141595141 in view of Wolf and Gürkök as applied to claims 8, 10, 15, and 16 above, and further in view of European Commission (“Evaluation of the use of phosphates in Consumer Automatic Dishwasher Detergents (CADD),” 2014; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “European Commission”).
Claim 11 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is substantially free from phosphonate-containing compounds.
Claim 12 is drawn to the washing or cleaning agent according to claim 8, wherein the washing or cleaning agent is substantially free from phosphate-containing compounds.
The relevant teachings of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 12, the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök does not teach or suggest absence of phosphonate- and phosphate-containing compounds.
European Commission acknowledges the environmental problems posed by the use of phosphates in consumer automatic dishwasher detergents (CADD) (p. 6, section 1.1). European Commission teaches that while phosphonates are effective at removing tea stains, the use of phosphonates is not possible in products that wish to be completely phosphate-free (p. 16, middle).
In view of the teachings of European Commission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a detergent including 0.2% to 2% of the tannase of GenPept WP_141595141 as taught and/or suggested by the combination of GenPept WP_141595141, Wolf, and Gürkök to be substantially free of phosphonate- and phosphate-containing compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because European Commission taught phosphates in CADD pose environmental problems and the use of phosphonates is not possible in products that wish to be completely phosphate-free.
Therefore, the washing or cleaning agent of claims 11 and 12 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An alternate record of GenPept Database Accession Number WP_141595141 (July 2019, 1 page; cited on the attached Form PTO-892).
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 3-7, 13, and 14 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 15, and 16 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, MANJUNATH N RAO can be reached on 571-272-0939. 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
APPENDIX A
PNG
media_image1.png
600
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
APPENDIX B
PNG
media_image2.png
604
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights