DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 18 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 a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "when present" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the cleaning adjunct is a required feature of the claimed aqueous wash liquor.
Regarding claim 18, the anionic surfactant and cleaning adjunct are both designated by the “(iii)” indicator. It is believed that the cleaning adjunct should be marked as “(iv)”.
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 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breves (DE 10304331)1 in view of Damager (US 20220169953).
With respect to claims 1 and 18, 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.
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 2-6, 10 and 19 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 an alginate lysate derived from marine flavobacterium with activity toward α-L-guluronate and β-D-mannuronate residues. Thomas discloses that the alginate lyase is identical to that set forth in SEQ ID NOS: 2 and 5.
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 Huang “Characterization of a New Alginate Lyase…”
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: 6.
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
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. Huang 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not appear to teach a 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, wherein the alginate lyase enzyme has at least about 60% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOS 6 or 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no art-based direction to individually dose alginate lyase and nuclease within Applicant’s per-enzyme windows for laundry. However, it would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill to experiment with different individual enzyme amounts when following the teachings of Breves regarding total enzyme amount (“preferably 0.5 to 3% by weight”) to arrive at the claimed alginase and nuclease values, particularly because the claimed amounts are characterized by considerable overlap with Breve’s disclosed range. The claimed ranges for alginase and nuclease enzyme amounts are broad and span 5 orders of magnitude, and those of ordinary skill would know how to work within this expansive range of possible values, especially given that Breves instructs one to do so.
Applicant additionally argues that enzyme stability and activity vary widely based on environmental conditions, and that it cannot be assumed that the Breves composition is suitable for use as a laundry detergent. In response, it is noted that the Damager reference is evidence that it common in the art to use an existing detergent for a wide variety of purposes, including for the cleaning of both hard surfaces and fabric. And even if, for the sake of argument, the Breves detergent is predicted to achieve suboptimal results when applied to laundry, the claims do not require any efficacy threshold or standard.
As for claims 2-6 and 10, Applicant argues that just because an enzyme sequence is known, it would not necessarily be obvious to use it in a detergent composition. The cited Breves and Damager references, however, provide instructions as to how to dose enzymes, such as alginases and nucleases. There is nothing of record suggesting that the claimed alginase enzymes are subject to additional considerations or constraints than the generic alginate lysates taught by Breves. Absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to use a known, well-defined and readily available alginase, such as those documented by Xu, Huang and Thomas, when creating the detergent formulation of Breves. There is no teaching in Breves which limits or constrains the pool of possible alginases to choose from.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
1 See provided English translation