DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 13 in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are drawn to product and product of use of the product and that under 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage applications, unity of invention for product and process of use of the product (among others). In addition, the ISA did not find any lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because unity of invention was broken between the product and process of using the product for reasons cited previously, e.g. the teachings of CN110396457 (cited on the IDS 07/19/2023) anticipates claim 1. Applicant has not commented on this teaching/finding. With regard to the finding of the ISA that there was no lack of unity, it is noted: MPEP 1893.03(d) stipulates: “The examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA.”
Applicant’s request for rejoinder if allowable subject matter is found is acknowledged and will be considered at that time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 and 16 are pending; Claims 6-12 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Thus, claims 1-5 and 13 are subject to examination on the merits.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EO2022/051847 filed 27 January 2022 which claims benefit of foreign priority document Denmark 202100089 filed 28 January 2021 is acknowledged. Said document has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 31 March 2026 and 19 July 2023 have been considered by the examiner. See initialed and signed PTO/SB/08’s.
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 and 4 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the phrases "such as" and “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 is 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 join inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that the lipase comprises 1 to 10 amino acid substitutions, in the lipase of claim 2 which has at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1. However, it not clear if the lipase of claim 4 has 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 4 before the recited mutations or if it has 70% identity (and higher) after/inclusive of the recited mutations are made in SEQ ID NO: 1.
Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mengee, D. (CN 110396457 – cited on IDS 07/19/2023).
Regarding claim, CN 110396457 teaches a laundry composition comprising a “laundry bead”, which is so named because of its shape, wherein said laundry detergent composition is wrapped within a water-soluble film resulting in said “laundry bead”. Said laundry detergent comprises Geotrichum candidum lipase (among other enzymes) and is present in the laundry detergent composition at either 4% or 1% – See Examples 2 and 3, respectively. In addition, the detergent composition comprises between 50-70% for the laundry gel, or 55-65% for the laundry beads, of surfactants (See 5th and 6th paragraphs under Summary of Invention).
Regarding claim 13, additional enzymes such as various proteases, papain, chymotrypsin, etc. are added (See Examples 2 and 3).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengee, D. (CN 110396457 – cited on IDS 07/19/2023), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Nagao et al. (J. Biochem, 1993 – cited herein).
The teachings of Mengee are recited above and incorporated into the instant rejection.
Mengee, however, does not teach the specific sequence of the Geotrichum candidum lipase utilized in laundry detergent composition.
Nagao et al. teach the cloning and expression of two G. candidum lipase isoforms (lipase I and lipase II). The former lipase has 100% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 2 (e.g. the wild-type lipase I from G. candidum) which differs from SEQ ID NO: 1 by two conservative substitutions (See alignment below). See Supplemental Content 20260419_170819_us-18-262-051-2.rup file, Result #1 for alignment of SEQ ID NO: 2. In addition, it is further taught: “Lipases [EC 3.1.1.3] catalyze the hydrolysis of triacylgly cerides to fatty acids and partial glycerides or glycerol. In recent years, much effort has been devoted to the use of microbial lipases in the field of oleochemistry (I, 2), organic chemistry (3, 4), and formulation of detergent compositions (5).” – See p. 776, 1st col., 1st paragraph.
GenCore version 6.5.2
Copyright (c) 1993 - 2026 Biocceleration Ltd.
OM protein - protein search, using sw model
Run on: August 25, 2026, 20:09:56 ; Search time 1 Seconds
(without alignments)
0.296 Million cell updates/sec
Title: US-18-262-051-2
Perfect score: 2886
Sequence: 1 QAPTAVLNGNEVISGVLEGK..........TDDFRIEGISNFESDVTLFG 544
Scoring table: BLOSUM62
Gapop 10.0 , Gapext 0.5
Searched: 1 seqs, 544 residues
Total number of hits satisfying chosen parameters: 1
Minimum DB seq length: 0
Maximum DB seq length: inf
Post-processing: Minimum Match 0%
Maximum Match 100%
Listing first 50 summaries
Database : US-18-262-051-1.fasta:*
SUMMARIES
%
Result Query
No. Score Match Length DB ID Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2880 99.8 544 1 US-18-262-051-1 Lipase with low ma
ALIGNMENTS
Qy=SEQ ID NO: 2
Db=SEQ ID NO: 1
RESULT 1
US-18-262-051-1
Query Match 99.8%; Score 2880; DB 1; Length 544;
Best Local Similarity 99.6%;
Matches 542; Conservative 2; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 QAPTAVLNGNEVISGVLEGKVDTFKGIPFADPPVGDLRFKHPQPFTGSYQGLKANDFSSA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 QAPTAVLNGNEVISGVLEGKVDTFKGIPFADPPVGDLRFKHPQPFTGSYQGLKANDFSSA 60
Qy 61 CMQLDPGNAISLLDKVVGLGKIIPDNLRGPLYDMAQGSVSMNEDCLYLNVFRPAGTKPDA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 CMQLDPGNAISLLDKVVGLGKIIPDNLRGPLYDMAQGSVSMNEDCLYLNVFRPAGTKPDA 120
Qy 121 KLPVMVWIYGGAFVFGSSASYPGNGYVKESVEMGQPVVFVSINYRTGPYGFLGGDAITAE 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 KLPVMVWIYGGAFVFGSSASYPGNGYVKESVEMGQPVVFVSINYRTGPYGFLGGDAITAE 180
Qy 181 GNTNAGLHDQRKGLEWVSDNIANFGGDPDKVMIFGESAGAMSVAHQLVAYGGDNTYNGKQ 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 GNTNAGLHDQRKGLEWVSDNIANFGGDPDKVMIFGESAGAMSVAHQLVAYGGDNTYNGKQ 240
Qy 241 LFHSAILQSGGPLPYFDSTSVGPESAYSRFAQYAGCDASAGDNETLACLRSKSSDVLHSA 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 LFHSAILQSGGPLPYFDSTSVGPESAYSRFAQYAGCDASAGDNETLACLRSKSSDVLHSA 300
Qy 301 QNSYDLKDLFGLLPQFLGFGPRPDGNIIPDAAYELYRSGRYAKVPYITGNQEDEGTILAP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 QNSYDLKDLFGLLPQFLGFGPRPDGNIIPDAAYELYRSGRYAKVPYITGNQEDEGTILAP 360
Qy 361 VAINATTTPHVKKWLKYICSEASDASLDRVLSLYPGSWSEGAPFRTGILNALTPQFKRIA 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 VAINATTTPHVKKWLKYICSEASDASLDRVLSLYPGSWSEGAPFRTGILNALTPQFKRIA 420
Qy 421 AIFTDLLFQSPRRVMLNATKDVNRWTYLATQLHNLVPFLGTFHGSDLLFQYYVDLGPSSA 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 AIFTDLLFQSPRRVMLNATKDVNRWTYLATQLHNLVPFLGTFHGSDLLFQYYVDLGPSSA 480
Qy 481 YRRYFISFANHHDPNVGTNLKQWDMYTDSGKEMLQIHMIGNSMRTDDFRIEGISNFESDV 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 YRRYFISFANHHDPNVGTNLKQWDMYTDAGREMLQIHMIGNSMRTDDFRIEGISNFESDV 540
Qy 541 TLFG 544
||||
Db 541 TLFG 544
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate either lipase I and/or lipase II from G. candidum as taught by Nagao et al. as the G. candidum lipase in the detergent composition of Mengee because (a) Mengee detail that they utilize a lipase from G. candidum and (b) Nagao et al. teach that lipases are conventionally utilizes in the detergent arts (See p. 776, 1st col., 1st paragraph). This would be motivation in and of itself for one skilled in the art. One skilled in the art furthermore would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding lipase I and/or lipase II as taught by Nagao et al. into the detergent composition of Mengee because Nagao et al. specifically teach how to specifically obtain both sequences.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mengee, D. (CN 110396457 – cited on IDS 07/19/2023), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Helmy et al. (IPO Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2020 – cited herein).
The teachings of Mengee are recited above and incorporated into the instant rejection.
Mengee, however, does not teach the specific sequence of the Geotrichum candidum lipase utilized in laundry detergent composition.
Helmy et al. teach the application of rhamnolipid as a biosurfactant in detergent formulations. Specifically it is stated (See started and end of Abstract):
Biosurfactants, also known as biological surface-active agents, are a group of surface-active agents, which are produced by a variety of microorganisms. Biosurfactants possess the characteristic property of lowering surface tension, increase the solubility of poorly soluble compound, low toxicity, non-allergenic, and biodegradable. Growing public awareness about the environmentally friendly health care and associated product has stimulated the search for eco-friendly compounds in laundry detergents.
The results showed that the rhamnolipid biosurfactants have a promising [sic] as a substitute for its synthetic counterpart. Based on the colorfastness to wash, color strength (K/S), and color difference (∆E) value, rhamnolipid based bio-detergent have similar washing effectiveness compared to the synthetic detergent.
Figure 1 demonstrates the efficacy and results of rhamnolipid as compared to other conventional surfactants, even in the presence of lipase enzymes (Figure 1 and Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate rhamnolipids as taught by Hemly et al. as the surfactant, or at least part of the surfactant composition, in the detergent composition of Mengee because (a) Mengee detail that they utilize 50-70% surfactants and (b) Mengee et al. teach that that rhamnolipid is an eco-friendly surfactant that is comparable other synthetic surfactants. This would be motivation in and of itself. One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the rhamnolipid surfactant for the synthetic surfactants detailed in Mengee given the details and success demonstrated by Hemly et al.
Regarding the wt% of rhamnolipid employed, the percent of surfactant is a result effective variable as demonstrated by Hemley et al. who state that it is the culmination of surfactant, enzymes, builders, etc. that determine the success of a detergent (See first paragraph on p. 5).
MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) notes the following:
“Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.);”
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE M NOAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-2924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7-4).
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 Rao can be reached at 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.
/SUZANNE M NOAKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656 25 August 2026
Prosecution Insights