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 1-18 and 20 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed February 3, 2026, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims. Regarding canceled claim 19, applicant is reminded that the text of a canceled claim must not be presented (see MPEP 714.II.C.(C)).
Applicant’s remarks filed February 3, 2026 in response to the non-final rejection mailed November 7, 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
Rejections previously applied to claim 19 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to cancel claim 19.
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 September 25, 2025, applicant elected without traverse the invention of Group I, corresponding to pending claims 1-18, and species i), an alginate lyase enzyme obtainable from Flavobacterium sp., including alginate lyase enzyme comprising SEQ ID NO: 1, in the reply filed October 10, 2025.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are being examined on the merits with claims 4 and 7 being examined only to the extent the claims read on the elected subject matter.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 6, 7, and 9-11 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 7, 14, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 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.
Claims 1 (claims 2-7 and 9-18 dependent therefrom), 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are indefinite in the recitation of “about.” The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no examples or teachings that can be used for ascertaining the variance intended by the term “about.” Moreover, there is nothing in the specification or prior art of record to indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art could have ascertained the scope of the term “about.” It is suggested that applicant clarify the meaning of the term “about.” See MPEP 2173.05(b).III.A regarding the term “about.”
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues the term “about” is definite when the claims are read in light of the specification and through the lens of one of skill in the art. According to applicant, one of skill in the art of detergent-enzyme formulation is well-acquainted with batch-to-batch raw-material variability, moisture-content fluctuations, and practical tolerances for surfactant and enzyme addition and this skill in the art supplies the appropriate objective standard for interpreting the degree of approximation conveyed by “about.”
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. According to MPEP 716.01(c).II, arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In this case, there is no evidence of record to support applicant’s allegation that one of skill in the art would have recognized the meaning of “about” in the context of the claims.
Applicant further argues the specification discloses 29 formulation examples that inform one of skill of the reasonable scope associated with “about.”
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. The specification’s disclosed formulation examples are acknowledged. However, there is nothing in the disclosed formulation examples to provide an indication as to the variability intended by the term “about” in the context of weight percents and weight ratios for enzymes and surfactants without reciting a reference for determining the weight percents (claims 1, 13, and 16), the context of sequence identities (claims 6 and 7), and the context of weight ratios (claims 9 and 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettiol et al. (US 6,486,112 B1; cited on the IDS filed July 3, 2023; hereafter “Bettiol”) in view of Huang et al. (J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 40:113-122, 2013; cited on Form PTO-892 filed November 7, 2025; hereafter “Huang”) and as evidenced by UniProt Database Accession Number G9CHX6 (December 2019, 1 page; cited on Form PTO-892 filed November 7, 2025; hereafter “UniProt”).
As amended, the claims are drawn to a detergent composition comprising about 0.00005 wt % to about 5 wt % of an alginate lyase enzyme and from about 1 to about 60 wt % anionic surfactant, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
Regarding claim 1, Bettiol teaches (in relevant part) a laundry detergent composition comprising a saccharide gum degrading enzyme and a cellulase; wherein said saccharide gum degrading enzyme is Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase (claim 1 of Bettiol). Bettiol teaches Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase has EC 4.2.2.11 (column 5, lines 3-4). Bettiol teaches enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of pure enzyme by weight of the detergent composition with a single enzyme (column 37, lines 11-16).
Bettiol teaches the laundry detergent composition generally comprises a surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant (column 25, lines 38-49), that is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 58-59). Bettiol teaches the anionic surfactant is typically present from about 1% to about 40%, preferably from about 3% to about 20% by weight of the laundry detergent composition (column 29, lines 34-37).
The difference between Bettiol and claim 1 is that Bettiol does not teach the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase having EC 4.2.2.11 is an alginate lyase from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
Huang teaches characterization of a new alginate lyase from Flavobacterium sp. S20 (see title), referred to as “Alg2A” (p. 113, Abstract). Huang teaches Alg2A belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Huang teaches Alg2A has a substrate preference for poly-α-L-guluronate (polyG) (p. 113, Abstract) and alginate lyases with a substrate preference for polyG are classified as poly-α-L-guluronate lyase having EC 4.2.2.11 (p. 114, column 1, middle).
In view of Bettiol and Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase of the detergent composition of Bettiol to be Alg2A of Huang. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase of the detergent composition of Bettiol to be Alg2A because Bettiol taught the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase has EC 4.2.2.11 and Huang taught Alg2A has a substrate preference for polyG and alginate lyases with a substrate preference for polyG are classified as poly-α-L-guluronate lyase having EC 4.2.2.11.
Regarding claims 2-5, Alg2A of Huang is from Flavobacterium sp. S20 (see title), which is a bacterium (p. 114, column 1, bottom).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Huang does not teach the amino acid sequence of Alg2A. However, evidentiary reference UniProt is cited to show that the amino acid sequence of Alg2A is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (see Appendix at pp. 34-35 of the Office action filed November 7, 2025 for sequence alignment).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Bettiol teaches enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of pure enzyme by weight of the detergent composition (column 37, lines 11-16) and the surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant, is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 38-49 and lines 58-59). When surfactant is present at 0.1% by weight and enzyme is present at 0.0001% by weight, the weight ratio of surfactant to enzyme is 1,000:1, which is within the ratios recited in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches Alg2A depolymerizes both poly-α-L-guluronate (polyG) and poly-β-D-mannuronate (polyM) (p. 117, column 2; p. 119, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that Bettiol’s detergent composition with Alg2A as the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase comprises at least two molecules of Alg2A.
Regarding claims 13-15, Bettiol teaches the laundry detergent compositions of the present invention will comprise a nonionic, an anionic and/or a cationic surfactant (column 25, lines 42-44), which encompasses the embodiment of a combination of nonionic and anionic surfactants. Bettiol teaches the anionic surfactant is typically present from about 1% to about 40%, preferably from about 3% to about 20% by weight (column 29, lines 34-37) and semi-polar nonionic surfactant is typically present from 0.2% to about 15%, preferably from about 1% to about 10% by weight (column 41, lines 50-53). When anionic surfactant is present at 1% by weight and semi-polar nonionic surfactant is present at 0.2%, the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to semi-polar nonionic surfactant is 5:1, which is within the ratios recited in claims 14 and 15.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Bettiol teaches suitable anionic surfactants to be used include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 28, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 18, Bettiol teaches the laundry detergent compositions comprise a mannanase (column 5, lines 44-46).
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues the rejection fails to articulate a motivation to substitute Bettiol’s enzyme with the enzyme of Huang; and applicant contends that there would have been no reasonable expectation of success because Bettiol does not teach polysaccharide lyase family 7 (PL7) enzymes and does not contemplate alginate-lyase-driven dingy cleaning as a detergent mechanism and Huang does not disclose biochemical characterization of Alg2A in high-surfactant laundry environments and does not provide any teaching regarding enzyme survival, stability, or activity under detergent-level surfactant loads.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. As stated above, Bettiol teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising a Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase having EC 4.2.2.11 and Huang teaches an alginate lyase having substrate preference for poly-α-L-guluronate and having EC 4.2.2.11. Given that the requisite characteristics taught by Bettiol for inclusion in a detergent composition are satisfied by the alginate lyase of Huang, one would have been motivated and would have expected success for the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase of the detergent composition of Bettiol to be Alg2A of Huang.
In this case, applicant appears to require absolute predictability to support the obviousness of the claimed invention. However, obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only some degree of predictability is required (see MPEP 2143.02.II) and since the requisite characteristics taught by Bettiol for inclusion in a detergent composition are satisfied by the alginate lyase of Huang, one would have had at least some degree of success for the Poly (α-L guluronate) lyase of the detergent composition of Bettiol to be Alg2A of Huang.
Applicant further argues the obviousness rationale improperly assumes predictable results because the specification discloses that PL7 enzymes exhibit successful detergent matrix performance whereas PL5 and PL6 enzymes fail, despite belonging to the same enzyme class. According to applicant, such differential performance is inherently non-predictable and falls outside of the “predictable results” framework contemplated by KSR.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. According to MPEP 2143.02.III, whether an art is predictable or whether the proposed modification or combination of the prior art has a reasonable expectation of success is determined before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Given that applicant’s specification was not available before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art could not have considered applicant’s specification to determine a reasonable expectation of success.
For these reasons, the claimed detergent composition would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s persuasive arguments, particularly that the combination of alginate lyase and anionic surfactant present in the recited weight percents imparts markedly different characteristics from the corresponding individual components as each occurs in nature.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Co-pending application 18/297,366
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 12-17 of co-pending application 18/297,366 (reference application) as evidenced by Huang.
Regarding instant claims 1-7, claim 1 of the reference application recites a detergent composition comprising from 0.00005 to 5 wt% alginate lyase enzyme by weight of the composition, 0.00005 wt% to 5 wt% hexosaminidase enzyme by weight of the composition, and from 1 to 60 wt% of an anionic surfactant, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme comprises from 98% to 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1,
claim 5 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 7 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme comprises 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and although the claims of the reference application do not recite the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, claim 10 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme protein is at least 1000:1.
Regarding instant claim 11, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and depolymerizes both poly-α-L-guluronate (polyG) and poly-β-D-mannuronate (polyM) (p. 117, column 2; p. 119, Figure 3). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate).
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 12 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising from 1% to 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 13 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 12, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from 30:1 to 1:2.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 14 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 12, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from 20:1 to 2:3.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, claim 16 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the anionic surfactant comprises alkyl benzene sulphonate.
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 17 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprises one or more of an amylase, a mannanase, a xanthan lyase, and a xanthanase.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending application 18/301,463
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 9-15, and 17 of co-pending application 18/301,463 (reference application) as evidenced by Huang.
Regarding instant claims 1-7, claim 1 of the reference application recites a laundry detergent composition comprising from about 0.00005 to about 5 wt % of an alginate lyase enzyme on an active enzyme protein level by weight of the composition, about 0.00005 wt % to about 5 wt % of a nuclease enzyme on an active enzyme protein level by weight of the composition, and from about 1 to about 60 wt % of an anionic surfactant,
claim 4 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 5 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1 wherein the alginate lyase enzyme comprises from about 60% to about 100%, sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and although the claims of the reference application do not recite the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, claim 9 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme protein is at least about 1000:1.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 10 of the reference application recites the laundry detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate).
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 13 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 14 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 14, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from about 30:1 to about 1:2.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 15 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 14, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from about 20:1 to about 2:3.
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 17 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising an additional enzyme comprising an amylase, a hexosaminidase, a mannanase, a xanthan lyase, a xanthanase, or a mixture thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 9-15, and 17 of co-pending application 18/301,463 (reference application) as evidenced by Huang as applied to claims 1-7, 9-15, and 18 above, and further in view of Bettiol.
The claims of the reference application do not recite the anionic surfactant comprises alkyl benzene sulfonate.
Bettiol teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising an enzyme (claim 1 of Bettiol), teaches the laundry detergent composition generally comprises a surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant (column 25, lines 38-49), and teaches suitable anionic surfactants to be used include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 28, lines 20-21).
In view of Bettiol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate because of the teachings of Bettiol regarding suitable anionic surfactants in a detergent composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending application 18/301,487
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-12, and 16-19 of co-pending application 18/301,487 (reference application) in view of Bettiol.
Regarding instant claims 1-7, claim 1 of the reference application recites a detergent composition comprising alginate lyase enzyme and a cleaning adjunct wherein the alginate lyase enzyme comprises at least about 60% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1,
claim 10 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 11 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1 wherein the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application.
The claims of the reference application do not recite the detergent composition comprises from about 1 to about 60 wt% anionic surfactant as recited in instant claim 1.
Bettiol teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising an enzyme (claim 1 of Bettiol), teaches the laundry detergent composition generally comprises a surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant (column 25, lines 38-49) that is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 58-59).
In view of Bettiol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to be present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to be present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight because of the teachings of Bettiol regarding anionic surfactants in a detergent composition.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, Bettiol teaches enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of pure enzyme by weight of the detergent composition (column 37, lines 11-16) and the surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant, is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 38-49 and lines 58-59). When surfactant is present at 0.1% by weight and enzyme is present at 0.0001% by weight, the weight ratio of surfactant to enzyme is 1,000:1, which is within the ratios recited in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 12 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate).
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 16 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 17 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 14, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from about 30:1 to about 1:2.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 18 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 14, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from about 20:1 to about 2:3.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, Bettiol teaches suitable anionic surfactants to be used include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 28, lines 20-21).
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 19 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising an additional enzyme comprising an amylase, a hexosaminidase, a mannanase, a xanthan lyase, a xanthanase, or a mixture thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending application 18/301,513
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8-15 of co-pending application 18/301,513 (reference application) as evidenced by Huang.
Regarding instant claims 1-7 and 11, claim 1 of the reference application recites a laundry detergent composition comprising from about 0.00005 wt % to about 5 wt % alginate lyase enzyme (based on active enzyme protein) and from about 1 to about 60 wt % anionic surfactant, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) (polyM activity) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate) (polyG activity),
claim 8 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 7, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 9 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme has about 60% to about 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and although the claims of the reference application do not recite the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, claim 10 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the anionic surfactant is present in an amount such that the weight ratio of surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme protein is at least about 500:1.
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 11 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 12 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 12, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from 30:1 to 1:2.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 13 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 12, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from 20:1 to 2:3.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, claim 14 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the anionic surfactant comprises alkyl benzene sulphonate.
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 15 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1 comprising additional enzyme, comprising amylase, nuclease, hexosaminidase, mannanase, xanthan lyase, xanthanase, amylase, or a mixture thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending application 18/739,532
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 of co-pending application 18/739,532 (reference application) in view of Bettiol and as evidenced by Huang.
Regarding instant claims 1-7, claim 1 of the reference application recites a detergent composition comprising (a) from about 0.00005 to about 5 wt % alginate lyase enzyme (active enzyme protein) and (b) Bacillus spores,
claim 3 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 4 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1 wherein the alginate lyase enzyme has at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and although the claims of the reference application do not recite the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
The claims of the reference application do not recite the detergent composition comprises about 1 to about 60 wt % anionic surfactant as recited in instant claim 1.
Bettiol teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising an enzyme (claim 1 of Bettiol), teaches the laundry detergent composition generally comprises a surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant (column 25, lines 38-49) that is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 58-59).
In view of Bettiol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to be present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to be present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight because of the teachings of Bettiol regarding anionic surfactants in a detergent composition.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, claim 6 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising surfactant present in an amount such that the weight ratio of surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme protein is at least about 500:1.
Regarding instant claim 11, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and depolymerizes both poly-α-L-guluronate (polyG) and poly-β-D-mannuronate (polyM) (p. 117, column 2; p. 119, Figure 3). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate).
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 8 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, claim 9 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 14, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from about 30:1 to about 1:2.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, Bettiol teaches suitable anionic surfactants to be used include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 28, lines 20-21).
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 7 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising an enzyme selected from amylase, protease, nuclease enzyme, hexosaminidase enzyme, endo-β-1,3-glucanase enzyme, and mixtures thereof, the or each enzyme being present in an amount from about 0.00005 to about 5 wt % active enzyme protein.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending application 18/932,665
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, and 14 of co-pending application 18/932,665 (reference application) in view of Bettiol and as evidenced by Huang.
Regarding instant claims 1-7, claim 1 of the reference application recites a detergent composition comprising: (a) from 0.00005 to 5 wt % alginate lyase enzyme (active enzyme protein) and (b) 0.00005 wt % to 5 wt % enzyme (active enzyme protein) of a booster enzyme selected from one or more of (i) Pel-ase enzyme; (ii) Psl-ase enzyme; (iii) endo-β-1,3 (4)-glucanase enzyme; and (iv) mixtures thereof,
claim 4 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 5 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1 wherein the alginate lyase enzyme has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and although the claims of the reference application do not recite the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
The claims of the reference application do not recite the detergent composition comprises about 1 to about 60 wt % anionic surfactant as recited in instant claim 1.
Bettiol teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising an enzyme (claim 1 of Bettiol), teaches the laundry detergent composition generally comprises a surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant (column 25, lines 38-49) that is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 58-59).
In view of Bettiol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to be present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the anionic surfactant of the claims of the reference application to be present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight because of the teachings of Bettiol regarding anionic surfactants in a detergent composition.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, claim 6 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising surfactant present in an amount such that the weight ratio of surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme protein is at least about 500:1.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 7 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) (polyM activity) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate) (polyG activity).
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 9 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 10 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 14, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is from about 30:1 to about 1:2.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 11 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 10, wherein the weight ratio of anionic to nonionic surfactant is from about 20:1 to about 2:3.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, Bettiol teaches suitable anionic surfactants to be used include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 28, lines 20-21).
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 14 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, further comprising an additional enzyme, preferably selected from amylase, nuclease, hexosaminidase, mannanase, xanthan lyase, xanthanase, and mixtures thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending application 18/932,669
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of co-pending application 18/932,669 (reference application) in view of Bettiol and as evidenced by Huang.
Regarding instant claims 1-7, claim 1 of the reference application recites a washing machine-cleaning composition comprising (a) at least two enzymes selected from (i) alginate lyase enzyme: (ii) Pel-ase enzyme: (iii) Psl-ase enzyme: (iv) endo-β-1,3-glucanase enzyme: and (v) endo-β-1,3(4)-glucanase enzyme: and (b) a cleaning adjunct,
claim 6 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the alginate lysate is obtained from Flavobacterium sp., and
claim 7 of the reference application recites the detergent composition according to claim 1 wherein the alginate lyase enzyme has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and although the claims of the reference application do not recite the alginate lyase enzyme is from polysaccharide lyase family 7, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and belongs to polysaccharide lyase family 7 (p. 116, column 2, top). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application is from polysaccharide lyase family 7.
The claims of the reference application do not recite an amount of alginate lyase enzyme and do not recite the detergent composition comprises about 1 to about 60 wt % anionic surfactant as recited in instant claim 1.
Bettiol teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising an enzyme (claim 1 of Bettiol) that is normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of pure enzyme by weight of the detergent composition with a single enzyme (column 37, lines 11-16). Bettiol teaches the laundry detergent composition generally comprises a surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant (column 25, lines 38-49) that is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 58-59).
In view of Bettiol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the recited alginate lyase of the claims of the reference application to be 0.0001% to 2% by weight of the detergent composition and for the claimed detergent composition to comprise anionic surfactant at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the recited alginate lyase of the claims of the reference application to be 0.0001% to 2% by weight of the detergent composition and for the claimed detergent composition to comprise anionic surfactant at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight because of the teachings of Bettiol regarding enzyme and anionic surfactant components in a detergent composition.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, Bettiol teaches enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of pure enzyme by weight of the detergent composition (column 37, lines 11-16) and the surfactant, which can be an anionic surfactant, is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight (column 25, lines 38-49 and lines 58-59). When surfactant is present at 0.1% by weight and enzyme is present at 0.0001% by weight, the weight ratio of surfactant to enzyme is 1,000:1, which is within the ratios recited in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding instant claim 11, evidentiary reference Huang teaches a polypeptide that is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application and depolymerizes both poly-α-L-guluronate (polyG) and poly-β-D-mannuronate (polyM) (p. 117, column 2; p. 119, Figure 3). Thus, it follows that the alginate lyase enzyme of SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference application provides activity towards poly(beta-D-mannuronate) and activity towards poly(alpha-L-guluronate).
Regarding instant claim 12, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “comprises two or more alginate lyase enzymes” is interpreted as two or more molecules of a single alginate lyase enzyme. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the laundry detergent composition of the claims of the reference application comprises at least two molecules of the recited alginate lyase enzyme.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 9 of the reference application recites the washing machine-cleaning composition according to claim 2, wherein the surfactant is a nonionic surfactant at a weight percentage of from about 0.5 to about 30 wt % of the composition.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, Bettiol teaches the anionic surfactant is typically present from about 1% to about 40%, preferably from about 3% to about 20% by weight (column 29, lines 34-37) and semi-polar nonionic surfactant is typically present from 0.2% to about 15%, preferably from about 1% to about 10% by weight (column 41, lines 50-53). When anionic surfactant is present at 1% by weight and semi-polar nonionic surfactant is present at 0.2%, the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to semi-polar nonionic surfactant is 5:1, which is within the ratios recited in claims 14 and 15.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, Bettiol teaches suitable anionic surfactants to be used include linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (column 28, lines 20-21).
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 10 of the reference application recites the washing machine-cleaning composition according to claim 1, further comprising an additional enzyme comprising at least one of: amylase, nuclease, mannanase, xanthan lyase, xanthanase, and mixtures thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues the claims of each of the co-pending applications are patentably distinct from the claims of this application.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because at least for the reasons set forth above, the claims of this application are not patentably distinct from the claims of the respective co-pending application.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending in the application.
Claims 8 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656