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 .
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on April 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 19, and 20 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8-13, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Spangenberg (WO 2018029021 A1) and Lant (US 20190264139 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 6-7 and claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Spangenberg (WO 2018029021 A1), Lant (US 20190264139 A1), and Shabelina (EP 3122786 B1) is withdrawn.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 1-4, 8-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangenberg (WO 2018029021 A1) and further in view of Juntunen (US 20190194634 A1).
With regard to claims 1-4, Spangenberg discloses a liquid laundry formulation (see page 1 line 1). Spangenberg further discloses a polymer which is an ethoxylated polyethylenimine with an average molecular weight Mw in the range from 3000 to 250,000 g/mol which has 80 to 99 % by weight ethylene oxide side chains, based on total ethoxylated polyethylenimine, and/or a polymer which is an ethoxylated hexamethylene diamine, quaternized and op- tionally sulfated with an average molecular weight Mw in the range from 2000 to 10,000 g/mol (see page 1 line 10-16). Spangenburg further discloses the ethoxylated hexamethylene diamine as having 20-30 EO per -NH group and a molecular weight of 2,000-10,000 g/mol (see page 9 line 27-29). Spangenburg further discloses the ethoxylated polyethylenimine as having 15-25 EO per -NH group and a molecular weight of 5,000-20,000 g/mol (see page 9 line 17-25). Spangenburg further discloses further optional ingredients, including enzymes which are not protease (see page 27 line 16-21).
However, Spangenburg fails to disclose at least one cellulose, wherein the at least one cellulase is an endo-β-1,4- glucanase which has no carbohydrate binding domain (CBD).
Juntunen discloses polypeptides having cellulase activity (see Abstract). Juntunen further discloses in the detergent industry, an analogous art, cellulases are used to brighten colors and to prevent graying (see [0002]). Juntunen further discloses cellulases as including endoglucanases (EG, EC 3.2.1.4) which cut internal beta-1,4-glucosidic bonds (see [0019]). EC 3.2.1.4 is disclosed in the instant specifications as endo- β-1,4-glucanase. Juntunen further teaches the polypeptide variants may be designed to comprise in addition to the catalytic core domain, which forms the active or functional site of the enzyme, one or more “cellulose binding domains” (“CBDs”) (see [0031]). “May” indicates that such domains are unnecessary and Juntunen further discloses CBDs have carbohydrate-binding activity and they mediate the binding of cellulase to crystalline and amorphous cellulose but have little or no effect on hydrolytic activity of the enzyme on soluble substrates (see [0031]). Further, Juntenen discloses variant cellulase polypeptides basing on Melanocarpus albomyces 20K-cellulase core (without CBD) (see [0006]) and variants derived from a parental molecule MA0 (SEQ ID NO: 2), which is a polynucleotide encoding for the catalytic core domain of a cellulase derived from Melanocarpus albomyces ALK04237 20K-cellulase having no cellulose binding domain (CBD) (see [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the endo-β-1,4-glucanase of Juntunen in the laundry detergent composition of Spangenburg for the purpose of to brighten colors and to prevent graying, as disclosed by Juntunen.
With regard to claim 8, Spangenburg discloses the composition comprises at least one builder or co-builder (see page 1 line 6).
With regard to Spangenburg discloses the composition may further comprise at least one optional ingredient, including nonionic or ionic (e.g. anionic) surfactants (see page 19 line 14-18).
With regard to claim 11 and claim 12, Spangenburg discloses customary ingredients for laundry detergent compositions, including greying inhibitors (see page 25 line 23-25).
With regard to claim 13, Spangenburg discloses “laundry” as comprising all kinds of textiles and fabrics (see page 6 line 27-29).
With regard to claim 15, Spangenburg discloses a method for removing stains and soil from laundry comprising contacting the laundry with a laundry detergent composition (see Abstract) and further discloses customary ingredients for laundry detergent compositions, including greying inhibitors (see page 25 line 23-25).
With regard to claim 16, Spangenburg discloses a composition comprising protease (see page 1 line 17).
With regard to claim 17, Spangenburg discloses the protease may be serine endopeptidase (see page 10 line 24).
With regard to claim 18, Spangenburg discloses the composition may further comprise at least one optional ingredient, including nonionic or ionic (e.g. anionic) surfactants (see page 19 line 14-18).
Claims 6-7 and claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangenberg (WO 2018029021 A1) and Juntunen (US 20190194634 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shabelina (EP 3122786 B1).
With regard to claim 6, Spangenburg and Juntunen disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Spangenburg and Juntunen fail to disclose the liquid composition of claim 1, further comprising component (c), which is a copolymer of (i) maleic acid or maleic anhydride, and (ii) at least one hydrophobic monomer selected from the group consisting of isobutene, diisobutene, butene, and/or mixtures thereof, wherein the copolymer is partially or completely neutralized.
Shabelina discloses liquid laundry cleaning compositions (see page 5 line 22-23) which may comprise builders and cobuilders (see page 8 line 24-26). Shabelina further discloses suitable cobuilders as polymers of at least maleic acid or maleic anhydride and one or more hydrophobic monomers such as isobutene, diisobutene, and butene (see page 8 line 51-54). Shabelina further teaches builders and cobuilders as acting to bind calcium and magnesium, thereby reducing water hardness (see page 8 line 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the above disclosed cobuilders of Shabelina in the laundry detergent composition of Spangenburg and Juntunen for the purpose of reducing water hardness, as disclosed by Shabelina. Further, Spangenburg discloses the composition comprises at least one builder or co-builder (see page 1 line 6).
With regard to claim 7, Spangenburg and Juntunen disclose all of the limitations of claim 6.
While Spangenburg, Juntunen, and Shabelina do not disclose a K value of 35-45, it stands to reason that the disclosed polymer would meet the requirement of having a K value of 35-45 as the disclosed polymer teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, upon which claim 7 depends. 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).
With regard to claim 14, Spangenberg discloses a liquid laundry formulation (see page 1 line 1). Spangenberg further discloses a polymer which is an ethoxylated polyethylenimine with an average molecular weight Mw in the range from 3000 to 250,000 g/mol which has 80 to 99 % by weight ethylene oxide side chains, based on total ethoxylated polyethylenimine, and/or a polymer which is an ethoxylated hexamethylene diamine, quaternized and op- tionally sulfated with an average molecular weight Mw in the range from 2000 to 10,000 g/mol (see page 1 line 10-16). Spangenburg further discloses the ethoxylated hexamethylene diamine as having 20-30 EO per -NH group and a molecular weight of 2,000-10,000 g/mol (see page 9 line 27-29). Spangenburg further discloses the ethoxylated polyethylenimine as having 15-25 EO per -NH group and a molecular weight of 5,000-20,000 g/mol (see page 9 line 17-25). Spangenburg further discloses further optional ingredients, including enzymes which are not protease (see page 27 line 16-21). Spangenburg further discloses a method for removing stains and soil from laundry comprising contacting the laundry with a laundry detergent composition (see Abstract) and further discloses customary ingredients for laundry detergent compositions, including greying inhibitors (see page 25 line 23-25).
However, Spangenburg fails to disclose at least one cellulose, wherein the at least one cellulase is an endo-β-1,4- glucanase which has no carbohydrate binding domain (CBD).
Juntunen discloses polypeptides having cellulase activity (see Abstract). Juntunen further discloses in the detergent industry, an analogous art, cellulases are used to brighten colors and to prevent graying (see [0002]). Juntunen further discloses cellulases as including endoglucanases (EG, EC 3.2.1.4) which cut internal beta-1,4-glucosidic bonds (see [0019]). EC 3.2.1.4 is disclosed in the instant specifications as endo- β-1,4-glucanase. Juntunen further teaches the polypeptide variants may be designed to comprise in addition to the catalytic core domain, which forms the active or functional site of the enzyme, one or more “cellulose binding domains” (“CBDs”) (see [0031]). “May” indicates that such domains are unnecessary and Juntunen further discloses CBDs have carbohydrate-binding activity and they mediate the binding of cellulase to crystalline and amorphous cellulose but have little or no effect on hydrolytic activity of the enzyme on soluble substrates (see [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the endo-β-1,4-glucanase of Juntunen in the laundry detergent composition of Spangenburg for the purpose of to brighten colors and to prevent graying, as disclosed by Juntunen.
However, Spangenburg and Juntunen fail to disclose the liquid composition of claim 1, further comprising component (c), which is a copolymer of (i) maleic acid or maleic anhydride, and (ii) at least one hydrophobic monomer selected from the group consisting of isobutene, diisobutene, butene, and/or mixtures thereof, wherein the copolymer is partially or completely neutralized.
Shabelina discloses liquid laundry cleaning compositions (see page 5 line 22-23) which may comprise builders and cobuilders (see page 8 line 24-26). Shabelina further discloses suitable cobuilders as polymers of at least maleic acid or maleic anhydride and one or more hydrophobic monomers such as isobutene, diisobutene, and butene (see page 8 line 51-54). Shabelina further teaches builders and cobuilders as acting to bind calcium and magnesium, thereby reducing water hardness (see page 8 line 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the above disclosed cobuilders of Shabelina in the laundry detergent composition of Spangenburg and Juntunen for the purpose of reducing water hardness, as disclosed by Shabelina. Further, Spangenburg discloses the composition comprises at least one builder or co-builder (see page 1 line 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-18 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 Lant does not teach or suggest at least one cellulase which has no carbohydrate binding domain (CBD). Rather, at most, Lant merely teaches that one type of CBM is absent. However, such teachings are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the present claims.
As Lant is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments with regard to Lant are moot.
Conclusion
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