DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 May 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breves (DE 10304331) in view of Damager (US 20220169953).
With respect to claims 1, 18 and 20, Breves discloses a detergent composition and cleaning method. The detergent contains an alginate lyase enzyme, a nuclease enzyme and an anionic surfactant (“The object of the invention is therefore in a further embodiment a detergent for hard surfaces, which is a preparation of one or more enzymes from the Group polysaccharidase (β-glucanase, Cellulase, xylanase, amylase, dextranase, glucosidase, galactosidase, Pectinase, chitinase, lysozyme, alginate lyase) and/or protease (Subtilisin, thermolysin, pepsin, carboxypeptidase, acid protease) and optionally one or more nucleases (DNAse, RNAse)”). Breves teaches that the enzyme preparation is about 0.1 to 10% by weight of the total detergent composition (“The detergent can be the enzyme preparation contained in amounts of 0.1 to 10.0 wt%, preferably 0.5 to 3% by weight”). Although Breves does not appear to specifically state that the alginate lyase and nuclease are both individually 0.00005 wt% to about 5 wt% of the total composition, those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to ensure that sufficient quantities of each enzyme are present in amounts necessary to perform a desired cleaning function. For example, an enzyme composition that makes up 10% by weight of the total detergent composition, would certainly contain at least 0.00005 wt% alginate lyase and at least 0.00005 wt% nuclease. Breves additionally states that the anionic surfactant is present in an amount that is about 1 to 60 wt% (“The anionic surfactants are preferred selected from the group comprising fatty alcohol sulfates in amounts of up to 5 wt%, alkyl benzenesulfonates in amounts of up to 7.5 wt% and soaps in amounts of up to 2% by weight, each based on the total composition”). Breves, however, appears to primarily discuss the detergent in terms of cleaning hard surfaces, and therefore does not expressly state that the detergent is a laundry detergent for treating a fabric.
Damager discloses a detergent composition comprising a mixture of enzymes (including nucleases) and an anionic surfactant. Damager teaches in paragraphs [0002], [0029], [0111], [0124], [0159] and [365] that the detergent composition can equally be used in a variety of different applications, including cleaning hard surfaces and laundering.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Breves detergent composition is configured as a laundry detergent suitable for treating a fabric via contact with an aqueous wash liquor. Damager indicates that it is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to use a known detergent composition to clean dirt, contaminants, stains, etc. from a variety of different surfaces, including hard surfaces (e.g., dishes) and textiles. Damager is evidence that this improves the functionality and range of utility for the detergent product and is accomplished using minimal to no changes to the detergent composition itself.
Breves additionally teaches that various agents, such as builders, are included in the detergent composition (“In addition to the enzyme preparation, this can Detergents also surfactants, builders, acids, alkalis, hydrotropes, Solvent, Thickeners, dyes, perfumes, corrosion inhibitors, skin protection agents and contain other ingredients common in cleaning agents”). It is believed that any of these agents may be considered a ”complexing agent”. Damager additionally teaches in paragraphs [0123], [0124], [0368]-[0370] and [0825] that builders and co-builders are included in the laundry detergent composition. Breves specifically lists diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) and (carboxymethyl)inulin (CMI) and states that they provide the beneficial function of a chelating agent that forms water-soluble complexes with Ca and Mg. Damager teaches that those of ordinary skill would consider “[a]ny builder and/or co-builder known in the art for use in detergents”.
With respect to claim 11, Breves and Damager disclose the combination as described above. Damager further teaches in paragraph [0361] that the nuclease enzyme is from Bacillus cibi or Aspergillus oryzae.
With respect to claims 13-16, Breves and Damager disclose the combination as described above. Breves further teaches that anionic and nonionic surfactants are provided in the detergent composition at approximately the same amounts (“Any surfactants used are preferably selected from the group anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants and/or amphoteric surfactants. Anionic and/or nonionic are preferred surfactants used. If they are used, they are anionic surfactants preferably in amounts of 0.1 to 15% by weight, nonionic surfactants preferably in amounts of 0.1 to 10 wt%”). Accordingly, those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide a weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant of about 1:1.
With respect to claim 17, Breves and Damager disclose the combination as described above. Breves further states that additionally enzymes may be included in the detergent composition, including amylases.
Claims 2-7, 10, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breves (DE 10304331) in view of Damager (US 20220169953) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Xu (CN 110144341) and/or Huang “Characterization of a New Alginate Lyase…” and/or Thomas “Comparative Characterization of Two Marine Alginate Lyases…”
Breves and Damager disclose the combination as described above. Although Breves recommends a detergent composition comprising alginate lyase, Breves does not appear to describe the alginate lyase.
Xu discloses an alginate lyase identical to that set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1. Xu teaches that the alginate lyase is characterized by high activity and is suitable for a variety of industrial applications.
Huang discloses an alginate lysate derived from marine flavobacterium with activity toward α-L-guluronate and β-D-mannuronate residues. Huang discloses that the alginate lyase is identical to that set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1. SEQ ID NO: 1 comprises at least 60% sequency identity to SEQ ID NO: 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thomas discloses alginate lysate derived from marine flavobacterium with activity toward α-L-guluronate and β-D-mannuronate residues. Thomas discloses that AlyA1PL7 is identical to that set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 5 (SEQ ID NO: 5 is a subset of SEQ ID NO: 2 beginning at residue 200). See Fig. 9 of Thomas. SEQ ID NO: 5 comprises at least 60% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 7.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to select a known alginate lyase when producing the detergent composition disclosed by Breves. Xu, Huang and Thomas each teach alginate lyases characterized by high enzymatic activity. The Xu, Huang and Thomas alginate lyases are commercially available and/or may be produced in a cost-effective manner. It is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to select a specific enzyme from a known provider, especially when the enzyme is stable, well characterized and known for its industrial applicability.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breves (DE 10304331) in view of Damager (US 20220169953) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bettiol (WO 9909127)
Breves and Damager disclose the combination as described above, however it is unclear if Breves teaches the claimed ratios of anionic surfactant to active alginate lyase.
Bettiol discloses a laundry detergent composition comprising many possible enzyme combinations that may include Alginase II. Bettiol teaches that the laundry detergent composition may include an anionic surfactant at up to 60% by weight (“The surfactant is typically present at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight”). Bettiol further teaches that enzymes may be present in a portion anywhere between 0.0001% to 2% by weight (“Said enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent composition at levels from 0.0001 % to 2% of pure enzyme by weight of the detergent composition. The enzymes can be added as separate single ingredients (prills, granulates, stabilized liquids, etc... containing one enzyme ) or as mixtures of two or more enzymes ( e.g. cogranulates”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to active alginate lyase enzyme is at least about 1000:1 in the Breves detergent composition. Bettiol teaches that it is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to experiment within wide ranges of enzyme amount and surfactant amount when producing a laundry detergent composition. Bettiol provides examples in which the surfactant amount is considerably (e.g., 1000:1) larger than the enzyme amount and portrays that this relative apportionment is standard in the industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breves (DE 10304331) in view of Damager (US 20220169953) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Vejborg (US 20210071116)
Breves and Damager disclose the combination as described above, however do not appear to teach that the detergent composition includes a hexosaminidase enzyme.
Vejborg discloses a detergent composition comprising nuclease and hexosaminidase enzymes, as well as a variety of other enzyme combinations. Vejborg states in paragraphs [0013] and [0014] and throughout the reference that the blend of DNase and hexosaminidase (e.g., dispersin) are effective in removing organic components and soiling.
Before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include hexosaminidase in the Breves detergent composition. Vejborg states in paragraphs [0141]-[0144] that nuclease and hexosaminidase enzymes exhibit a synergistic effect when used together in a cleaning composition. Breves already encourages the use of a wide variety of enzymes, and one of ordinary skill would have found it useful to include hexosaminidase in order to obtain further gains in wash performance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettiol (US 6486112) in view of Thomas “Comparative Characterization of Two Marine Alginate Lyases…”
Bettiol discloses a laundry detergent composition comprising a saccharide gum degrading enzyme. Column 4, line 45 to column 5, line 17 states that the enzyme may be alginase II (i.e., poly(α-L-guluronate) lyase). Column 22, lines 51-56 states that the enzyme is provided at a level of from 0.0001% to 2% enzyme by weight of the composition. Bettiol, however, does not appear to describe the alginate lyase as having at least about 60% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 7.
Thomas discloses alginate lysate derived from marine flavobacterium with activity toward α-L-guluronate and β-D-mannuronate residues. Thomas discloses that AlyA1PL7 is identical to that set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 5 (SEQ ID NO: 5 is a subset of SEQ ID NO: 2 beginning at residue 200). See Fig. 9 of Thomas. SEQ ID NO: 5 comprises at least 60% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 7.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to select a known alginate lyase when producing the detergent composition disclosed by Bettiol. Thomas teaches an alginate lyase characterized by high enzymatic activity that is commercially available and/or may be produced in a cost-effective manner. It is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill to select a specific enzyme from a known provider, especially when the enzyme is stable, well characterized and known for its industrial applicability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Breves teaches away from a laundry detergent comprising a complexing agent. However, Breves expressly teaches that builders, which are “complexing agents”, are desirable (“this can Detergents also surfactants, builders, acids, alkalis, hydrotropes, Solvent, Thickeners…” Damager expressly states that builders and co-builders, such as diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) and (carboxymethyl)inulin (CMI) provide the beneficial function of a chelating agent that forms water-soluble complexes with Ca and Mg. Damager teaches that those of ordinary skill would consider “[a]ny builder and/or co-builder known in the art for use in detergents”.
Applicant argues that Xu, Huang and Thomas are not analogous art. In response, it is noted that these references provide a detailed structural and biochemical characterization of known alginate lyases and recognize their ability to disrupt bacterial biofilms. Accordingly, they are reasonably pertinent to problem faced by the inventor, which is the treatment of laundry using a detergent comprising alginase. Breves and Bettiol each recommend that a detergent include alginase, and those of ordinary skill would have looked to the literature (i.e., Xu, Huang, Thomas) to select a known alginate lyase.
Lastly, Applicant notes that claims 19 and 21 now require “less than 100% sequence identity” to SEQ ID NOS: 1 and 2 and/or at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6. However, the difference between 100% and less than 100% is trivial and obvious, as even a single substitution (including conserved amino acid substitutions) would transform an enzyme having 100% sequence identity to an enzyme having less than 100% sequence identity, and thereby satisfy the claimed language. Huang and Xu further show enzymes having a 68.1% match and a 72.8% best local similarity to SEQ ID NO: 6, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of 75% similarity. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to consider amino acid substitutions to the disclosed enzyme sequence to arrive at an alginase that more closely resembles that of SEQ ID NO: 6. For example, when conservative mismatches are included in the match count, the sequence-to-sequence alignment between the enzyme of Huang and Xu and that of SEQ ID NO: 6 has an identity well over 75% similarity. Furthermore, it is additionally noted that Thomas shows an enzyme having a sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 7 of at least 60%.
Conclusion
This is a non-final rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights