DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 26, 2026 has been entered.
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 amendment to the claims, filed August 26, 2026, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 17-21, 23, 26, 27, and 31 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s remarks filed August 26, 2026 in response to the final rejection filed June 16, 2026 and the advisory action filed August 10, 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Restriction/Election
In response to a requirement for restriction/election filed December 29, 2025, applicant elected without traverse the invention of Group I, claims 1, 26, 27, and 31, in the reply filed January 13, 2026.
Claims 6, 8-11, 17-21, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 is objected to in the recitation of “…and having lysozyme activity, wherein the detergent composition is effective to reduce microbial growth in a wash liquor; and (c) a polypeptide having protease activity” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “…and having lysozyme activity, wherein the detergent composition is effective to reduce microbial growth in a wash liquor.”
Claim 31 is objected to in the recitation of “The composition of claim 27” and in the interest of improving claim form and consistency with claim 27, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite (with markings to show changes made) “The detergent composition of claim 27.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 1, 26, 27, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 26. The detergent compositions of amended claims 1 and 26 are considered to be markedly different from what occurs in nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UniProt Database Accession Number A4Z8Q1 (December 11, 2019, 2 pages; cited on Form PTO-892 filed February 3, 2026) in view of Hussain et al. (International Journal of Food Properties 18:1288-1297, 2015; cited on Form PTO-892 filed February 3, 2026) and Sharma, R. K. (PharmaTutor 2:17-29, 2014; cited on Form PTO-892 filed June 16, 2026) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to limit the composition to a “detergent composition.”
Claims 1, 26, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,041,236; cited on Form PTO-892 filed February 3, 2026; hereafter “Carpenter”) in view of UniProt Database Accession Number A0A0C5AGQ3 (December 11, 2019, 2 pages; cited on Form PTO-892 mailed February 3, 2026; hereafter “UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3”).
This rejection has been modified from its previous version in order to address applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Carpenter teaches an antimicrobial composition comprising a ruminant stomach lysozyme (column 6, lines 52-53) with ruminant stomach lysozyme C being preferred for use (column 5, lines 41-42). Carpenter teaches ruminant stomach lysozyme is a lysozyme characteristic of the stomach mucosa of mammals with foreguts (column 1, lines 24-25) and teaches “rumen (foregut)” (column 5, line 21), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Carpenter is teaching “rumen” as another name for “foregut.” Carpenter acknowledges that the lysozyme is a recombinant polypeptide (column 6, lines 5-15). According to Carpenter, other ruminant stomach lysozymes which may be found and/or cloned are also contemplated (column 6, lines 20-21). Carpenter teaches the antimicrobial composition can be formulated as a laundry detergent (column 7, lines 24-25; column 10, lines 41-46), the antimicrobial composition comprises a detergent surfactant (column 7, lines 17-19), and teaches detergent composition components including proteases (column 8, lines 45-46). Carpenter teaches the enzymes should be used at a concentration sufficient to produce an antimicrobial effect (column 9, lines 67-68), the compositions can be used periodically for removal and prevention of microbial growth (column 10, lines 56-57), and the composition is most preferably for the destruction of Staphylococcus aureus and/or Escherichia coli (column 10, lines 26-28).
The difference between claims 1 and 26 and Carpenter is that Carpenter does not teach a polypeptide having an amino acid sequence having at least 95% sequence identity with the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and having lysozyme activity.
UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 teaches a buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) lysozyme C from rumen tissue (see p. 1, top and middle). The amino acid sequence disclosed by UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (see Appendix B sequence alignment at pp. 21-22 of the Office action filed February 3, 2026).
In view of the combined teachings of Carpenter and UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the buffalo lysozyme of UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 in the detergent composition of Carpenter. One would have been motivated and would have expected success to use the buffalo lysozyme of UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 in the detergent composition of Carpenter because Carpenter taught the composition comprises a ruminant stomach lysozyme, preferably a ruminant stomach lysozyme C, Carpenter taught ruminant stomach lysozyme is a lysozyme characteristic of the stomach mucosa of mammals with rumens, and UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 taught a lysozyme C from rumen tissue of a buffalo, which is a mammal.
Regarding claim 27, the “at least one additional polypeptide” includes “proteases” and does not require that the proteases are different from the “polypeptide having protease activity” in claim 26. Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the proteases of Carpenter are encompassed by the “polypeptide having protease activity” in claim 26 and the “proteases” of claim 27.
Regarding claim 31, since claim 31 does not limit the “at least one additional polypeptide” to “nucleases,” claim 31 encompasses the alternative of “proteases” and as stated above, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the proteases of Carpenter are encompassed by the “polypeptide having protease activity” in claim 26 and the “proteases” of claims 27 and 31.
Therefore, the detergent composition of claims 1, 26, 27, and 31 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues the claims have been amended to recite the feature of “wherein the detergent composition is effective to reduce microbial growth in a wash liquor” and Carpenter’s teaching of antimicrobial activity is not synonymous with the recited feature of “wherein the detergent composition is effective to reduce microbial growth in a wash liquor.” According to applicant, the cited references never evaluate wash liquor activity, detergent compatibility, and/or post-wash microbial reduction and thus, the Office therefore has not established that the claimed detergent utility would have been expected.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. As previously stated, Carpenter teaches the detergent composition can be used periodically for removal and prevention of microbial growth and the composition is most preferably for the destruction of Staphylococcus aureus and/or Escherichia coli. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Carpenter’s detergent composition modified to comprise the buffalo lysozyme of UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 would be “effective to reduce microbial growth in a wash liquor” as recited in claims 1 and 26.
Applicant further argues the cited prior art does not provide a reasonable expectation of success because Carpenter never demonstrates stability in commercial laundry detergents, compatibility with detergent surfactants, compatibility with detergent proteases, and/or activity in wash liquor environments, while the instant specification evaluates lysozyme activity in multiple detergent systems and demonstrates microbial reduction after washing. Thus, according to applicant, the rejection fails to establish a reasonable expectation that the buffalo lysozyme C of UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 would successfully perform in detergent environments.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. In this case, it appears applicant is requiring absolute predictability of success of the claimed invention. However, according to MPEP 2143.02.II, obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success, only some degree of predictability is required. In view of the combined teachings of Carpenter and UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 as set forth above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least some degree of predictability that the detergent composition of Carpenter modified to comprise the buffalo lysozyme of UniProt A0A0C5AGQ3 would be “effective to reduce microbial growth in a wash liquor.”
For these reasons, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 17-21, 23, 26, 27, and 31 are pending.
Claims 6, 8-11, 17-21, and 23 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 26, 27, and 31 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
Prosecution Insights