DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 7, 2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-18 are pending in the application and are being examined on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed July 7, 2026, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Applicant’s submission of a terminal disclaimer, filed July 6, 2026, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s remarks filed July 7, 2026 in response to the final rejection filed May 5, 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed July 6, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/325,470 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to in the recitation of “further comprising a protease” and “further comprising an amylase,” respectively, and in the interest of improving claim form and improving consistency with claim 1, it is suggested that the noted phrases be amended to recite “further comprising the optional protease” and “further comprising the optional amylase.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skagerlind, J. P. (WO 2015/144782 A1; cited on the IDS filed September 29, 2023; hereafter “Skagerlind”) in view of Sibbesen et al. (WO 2010/072225 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed January 30, 2026; hereafter “Sibbesen”) as evidenced by ACUSOL 588G Polymer Safety Data Sheet (13 pages, March 2024; cited on Form PTO-892 filed May 5, 2026; hereafter “Acusol 588G SDS”).
As amended, the claims are drawn to a dishwashing detergent composition comprising:
one or more enzymes consisting of a xylanase, an optional amylase, and an optional protease, wherein the xylanase has an amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the xylanase is present in a wash liquor in a dishwasher cycle in an amount of from 0.05 ppm to 750 ppm of the enzyme; and
from 0.5% to 20%, by weight of the composition, of a sulphonated carboxylate polymer comprising a sulphonated acrylic polymer and/or a sulphonated acrylic/maleic polymer.
Regarding the instant claim 1 limitation “a dishwashing detergent composition comprising: one or more enzymes consisting of a xylanase,” Skagerlind teaches a dishwashing composition comprising enzymes capable of degrading cellulosic material including an Aspergillus fumigatus GH10 xylanase (claim 5; p. 23, lines 10-11 and 15-16).
Regarding the instant claim 1 limitation “wherein the xylanase is present in a wash liquor in a dishwasher cycle in an amount of from 0.05 ppm to 750 ppm of the enzyme,” Skagerlind teaches the polypeptide may be used in the dishwashing composition in an amount corresponding to 0.05-20 mg per liter of wash liquor (p. 25, lines 14-17). In view of Skagerlind’s definition of “wash liquor” (p. 8, lines 25-26), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the “wash liquor” taught by Skagerlind is an aqueous solution. An aqueous dishwash liquor with 0.05-20 mg polypeptide per liter of wash liquor corresponds to approximately 0.05-20 ppm polypeptide in the wash liquor (based on the formula ppm = mg/L ÷ density (g/mL), density of water = 1 g/mL). According to MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding the instant claim 1 limitation “from 0.5% to 20%, by weight of the composition, of a sulphonated carboxylate polymer comprising a sulphonated acrylic polymer and/or a sulphonated acrylic/maleic polymer,” Skagerlind teaches the dishwashing composition comprises a polymer (p. 16, lines 1-3) and teaches sulfonated/carboxylated polymers are particularly suitable for the compositions contained in a pouch (p. 28, lines 7-8). Skagerlind teaches the carboxylic acid of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer is preferably (meth)acrylic acid (p. 29, line 31) and the sulfonic acid monomer of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer preferably includes 2-acrylamido methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-methacrylamido-2-methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid, and 3-methacrylamido-2-hydroxypropanesulfonic acid (p. 29, lines 31-33). Skagerlind teaches the sulfonic acid monomer of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer is most preferably 2-acrylamido-2-propane sulfonic acid (AMPS) (p. 29, line 37 to p. 30, line 2). Skagerlind teaches preferred commercially available polymers include Acusol 588G (p. 30, lines 3-5). Acusol 588G is a copolymer of acrylic acid and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid monomers. Skagerlind teaches the amount of the sulphonated carboxylate polymer is preferably from 0.5% to about 20%, more preferably from 1% to 15% by weight of the composition. According to MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The difference between Skagerlind and claim 1 is that Skagerlind does not teach the amino acid sequence of the xylanase of the dishwashing composition has at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Sibbesen teaches a xylanase comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 11 (p. 80, lines 15-21) and teaches xylanase as a component of a dishwashing detergent (p. 8, lines 8-11). SEQ ID NO: 11 of Sibbesen is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (see Appendix A at pp. 17-18 of the Office action filed January 30, 2026 for sequence alignment).
In view of the combined teachings of Skagerlind and Sibbesen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Skagerlind’s dishwashing detergent composition by substituting the xylanase with the xylanase of Sibbesen. One of ordinary skill would have expected success and could have substituted the xylanase of Skagerlind’s dishwashing detergent composition with the xylanase of Sibbesen because Sibbesen taught the xylanase as a component of a dishwashing detergent. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to make the substitution because, based on the relevant teachings of Skagerlind and Sibbesen, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have predicted that the xylanase of Sibbesen is suitable for use in Skagerlind’s dishwashing detergent composition.
Regarding instant claim 3, Skagerlind teaches the composition includes at least one non-ionic surfactant (p. 25, line 27). Skagerlind teaches suitable non-ionic surfactants include low-foaming nonionic (LFNI) surfactants for improved water-sheeting action (p. 25, lines 27-28) including a block polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene polymer (p. 26, lines 2-5). Skagerlind teaches LFNI surfactant has a cloud point below 30oC (p. 26, line 21), which is within the range of “having a cloud point of…greater than about 20oC.”
Regarding instant claim 5, Skagerlind teaches the composition is in the form of a pouch (p. 18, lines 31-32).
Regarding instant claim 8, Skagerlind teaches the composition contains a bleach catalyst (p. 2, lines 14-15; 52, lines 32-34).
Regarding instant claim 9, Skagerlind teaches the composition contains a detergent builder or co-builder, which may particularly be a chelating agent (p. 31, lines 1-6).
Regarding instant claim 10, the combination of Skagerlind and Sibbesen does not teach or suggest the xylanase of Sibbesen is from GH family 10. However, according to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Since the xylanase of Sibbesen is encompassed by the claim 1 limitation “a xylanase having an amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” and the amino acid sequence of the xylanase of Sibbesen is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1, it is presumed that the xylanase of Sibbesen has the property of being from GH family 10.
Regarding instant claim 11, the combination of Skagerlind and Sibbesen does not teach or suggest the xylanase of Sibbesen is from GH family 11. However, according to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Since the xylanase of Sibbesen is encompassed by the claim 1 limitation “a xylanase having an amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” and the amino acid sequence of the xylanase of Sibbesen is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1, it is presumed that the xylanase of Sibbesen has the property of being from GH family 11.
Regarding instant claim 12, as previously stated, Skagerlind teaches preferred commercially available polymers include Acusol 588G (p. 30, lines 3-5). Acusol 588G is a copolymer of acrylic acid and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid monomers.
Regarding instant claim 13, Skagerlind teaches preferred carboxylic acid monomers of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer include one or more of the following: acrylic acid, maleic acid, itaconic acid, methacrylic acid, or ethoxylate esters of acrylic acids (p. 29, lines 15-16). In view of the teachings of Skagerlind, it would have been obvious for the carboxylic acid monomers of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer of Skagerlind to be a copolymer of acrylic acid and maleic acid. One would have been motivated and would have expected success for the carboxylic acid monomers of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer of Skagerlind to be a copolymer of acrylic acid and maleic acid because Skagerlind teaches acrylic acid and maleic acid as preferred monomers for the carboxylic acid monomers of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer.
Regarding instant claim 14, as previously stated, Skagerlind teaches preferred commercially available polymers include Acusol 588G (p. 30, lines 3-5). The combination of Skagerlind and Sibbesen does not teach or suggest Acusol 588G has a weight average molecular weight of less than or equal to 100,000 Da. However, evidentiary reference Acusol 588G SDS is cited to show that Acusol 588G has a molecular weight of 10,500 - 14,000 g/mol (Da) (p. 5, top). In the interest of clarity, it is noted that while Acusol 588G SDS was published after the effective filing date, the critical date of extrinsic evidence showing a universal fact need not antedate the filing date. See MPEP 2124.
Regarding instant claim 15, as previously stated, Skagerlind teaches the sulfonic acid monomer of the sulfonated/carboxylated polymer is most preferably 2-acrylamido-2-propane sulfonic acid (AMPS) (p. 29, line 37 to p. 30, line 2).
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, Skagerlind teaches proteases and amylases are typically used in commercial dishwashing detergents (p. 1, lines 16-17) and teaches the dishwashing composition additionally comprises amylase and protease enzymes (p. 14, lines 23-27).
Regarding instant claim 18, Skagerlind teaches the composition contains a detergent builder, which may particularly be a chelating agent (p. 31, lines 1-6). A chelating agent is considered to be encompassed by “a complexing agent” in claim 18.
The term “detersive surfactant” is interpreted as meaning a surfactant for cleaning or a cleaning surfactant. Skagerlind teaches the dishwashing composition may further comprise a surfactant (p. 16, line 1) and teaches surfactants for use in the dishwashing composition (pp. 25-28). Since the dishwashing composition of Skagerlind is for cleaning, the surfactant component of the dishwashing composition taught by Skagerlind is considered to be a “detersive surfactant.”
Skagerlind teaches the automatic dishwashing composition contains detergent components such as bleaching systems (p. 2, lines 13-15) and teaches inorganic and organic bleaches as suitable cleaning actives (p. 32, lines 1-2).
Skagerlind teaches proteases and amylases are typically used in commercial dishwashing detergents (p. 1, lines 16-17) and teaches the dishwashing composition additionally comprises amylase and protease enzymes (p. 14, lines 23-27).
Therefore, the dishwashing detergent composition of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skagerlind in view of Sibbesen and as evidenced by Acusol 588G SDS as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-18 above, and further in view of Man et al. (WO 2018/136719 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed January 30, 2026; hereafter “Man”).
Claim 4 is drawn to the composition according to claim 3, wherein the ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymer is a triblock copolymer having one of the following structures:
EOx1 POy1 EOx2 (I)
POy2 EOx3 POy3 (II)
wherein each of x1, x2 and x3 is independently in the range of from about 1 to about 50, and each of y1, y2 and y3 is independently in the range of from about 10 to about 70.
The relevant teachings of Skagerlind, Sibbesen, and evidentiary reference Acusol 588G SDS as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-18 are set forth above.
The combination of Skagerlind and Sibbesen does not teach or suggest the ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymer recited in claim 4.
Man teaches defoaming agents that contribute to sheeting performance including nonionic ethylene oxide containing surfactants (p. 19, lines 22-28). Man teaches examples of ethylene oxide derivative surfactants that may be used as defoamers include polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers with the formulae (EO)x(PO)y(EO)x and (PO)y(EO)x(PO)y with x being in the range of 10 to 130 and y being in the range of 15 to 70 (p. 19, line 31 to p. 21, line 4). The ranges of x and y taught by Man overlap with the ranges of x and y recited in claim 4 and according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
In view of the combined teachings of Skagerlind, Sibbesen, and Man, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the exemplary polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers with the formulae (EO)x(PO)y(EO)x and (PO)y(EO)x(PO)y of Man in the dishwashing detergent composition of the combination of Skagerlind and Sibbesen. One would have been motivated and would have expected success to do this because Skagerlind teaches low-foaming nonionic surfactants for improved water-sheeting action including a block polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene polymer, and Man teaches exemplary polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers with the formulae (EO)x(PO)y(EO)x and (PO)y(EO)x(PO)y as defoaming agents that contribute to sheeting performance. Man does not expressly teach the exemplary polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers have a cloud point of about 20°C or greater than about 20°C. However, according to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, and since the structures of the exemplary polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers of Man are substantially identical to the structures recited in claim 4, it is presumed that the exemplary polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers of Man have a cloud point of about 20°C or greater than about 20°C.
Therefore, the dishwashing detergent composition of claim 4 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues Skagerlind teaches the dishwashing detergent composition comprises cellulolytic enzymes that are excluded by the recitation of “one or more enzymes consisting of a xylanase, an optional amylase, and an optional protease” in claim 1, however, there would have been no motivation to exclude such cellulolytic enzymes because doing so would render the dishwashing detergent composition inoperable for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The transitional phrase “comprising” in the recitation of “a dishwashing detergent composition comprising” in line 1 of claim 1 is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements (MPEP 2111.03.I). Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed dishwashing detergent composition is not limited to the “one or more enzymes consisting of a xylanase, an optional amylase, and an optional protease” as recited in claim 1 and is inclusive of additional, unrecited enzymes. Thus, contrary to applicant’s position, claim 1 does not exclude the cellulolytic enzymes of the detergent composition of Skagerlind.
Applicant argues that even if a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, it is rebutted by a showing of an unexpected improvement in removal of burnt-on, baked-on soil. Applicant contends that Skagerlind is not the closest prior art in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite “one or more enzymes consisting of a xylanase, an optional amylase, and an optional protease.”
Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results is not found persuasive. According to MPEP 716.02(e), the evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art. In this case, applicant fails to compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art, which appears to be Skagerlind disclosing a dishwashing composition comprising Aspergillus fumigatus GH10 xylanase and a sulphonated acrylic polymer. For example, Skagerlind discloses dishwashing detergent compositions comprising Acusol 588 (p. 61, middle) combined with an enzyme preparation comprising Aspergillus fumigatus GH10 xylanase (paragraph bridging pp. 61-62). Applicant argues Skagerlind is not the closest prior art, however, as previously stated, the transitional phrase “comprising” in the recitation of “a dishwashing detergent composition comprising” in line 1 of claim 1 is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements (MPEP 2111.03.I). Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed dishwashing detergent composition is not limited to the “one or more enzymes consisting of a xylanase, an optional amylase, and an optional protease” as recited in claim 1 and is inclusive of additional, unrecited enzymes. Thus, contrary to applicant’s position, Skagerlind is considered to be the closest prior art of record. In this case, applicant’s evidence of unexpected results is not based on a comparison with the closest prior art and consequently fails to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Also, according to MPEP 716.02(d), unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. “Commensurate in scope” means that the evidence provides a reasonable basis for concluding that the untested embodiments encompassed by the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested embodiments. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972). Although not expressly stated by applicant, applicant’s results appear to be based on particular amounts of a xylanase comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and Acusol 588G. While nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range (MPEP 716.02(d).I), there is no evidence of record that the untested embodiments encompassed by the claims (e.g., any amount of any xylanase having an amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and any amount of any sulphonated carboxylate polymer comprising a sulphonated acrylic polymer and/or a sulphonated acrylic/maleic polymer) would behave in the same manner as the tested embodiment(s). In this case, applicant’s results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and consequently fail to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
For these reasons, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
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.
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, and 15 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12 of co-pending application 18/325,470 (reference application), and
the provisional rejection of claims 14 and 16-18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12 of co-pending application 18/325,470 (reference application) in view of Skagerlind and as evidenced by Acusol 588G SDS
are withdrawn in view of applicant’s submission of a terminal disclaimer disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/325,470.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-18 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-18 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MANJUNATH N RAO can be reached on 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights