DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendment and response filed on 6/8/2026 have been received and entered into the case. Claims 1-15 are pending, Claims 6-7, 12-13 and 15 have been withdrawn, and Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14 have been considered on the merits, insofar as they read on the elected species of EOx1POy1EOx2, sulphonated acrylic polymer, and glycosyl hydrolases from GH family 11. All arguments have been fully considered.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) as evidenced by BASF (BASF TI/ES 1026 e. 2005;1-16.) and Bodratti et al (J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9(11):1-24.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claim 10 under Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) in view of Lant et al (US 8,349,789 B2; 1/8/2013.) as evidenced by BASF (BASF TI/ES 1026 e. 2005;1-16.) and Bodratti et al (J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9(11):1-24.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claim 11 under Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) in view of Collins et al (FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2005;29:3-23.) as evidenced by BASF (BASF TI/ES 1026 e. 2005;1-16.) and Bodratti et al (J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9(11):1-24.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-9 of co-pending Application No. 18/325,455 (referred to as the ‘455 application) in view of Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) and Lant et al (US 8,349,789 B2; 1/8/2013.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the xylanase” on line 5 should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 5-7, the recitation of “wherein in a wash liquor comprising the dishwashing detergent composition, the xylanase the xylanase is present in the wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme” is indefinite because the wherein clause is reciting a method step, it is unclear how this recitation limits the structure of the claimed dishwashing detergent composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) in view of Lant et al (US 2019/0264140 A1; 8/29/2019.), as evidenced by BASF (BASF TI/ES 1026 e. 2005;1-16.) and Bodratti et al (J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9(11):1-24.).
The instant claims recite a dishwashing detergent composition comprising: a xylanase; and from 0.1% to 30%, by weight of the composition, of an ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer having a cloud point of 20°C or greater, wherein in a wash liquor comprising the dishwashing detergent composition, the xylanase is present in the wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme.
Denome teaches a composition comprising xylanases (para 0114) and from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% of an ethylene oxide-propylene oxide-ethylene oxide (EOx1POyEOx2) triblock copolymer (para 0035-0036, 0051), wherein each ethylene oxide block or chain independently has an average chain length of between 3 and 50 ethylene oxide units (para 0053), an average propylene oxide chain length of between 20 and 70 propylene oxide units (para 0051), and suitable ethylene oxide-propylene oxide-ethylene oxide triblock copolymers include Pluronic PE 9200 (para 0057), which has a cloud point of about 20°C or greater as evidenced by BASF (p.5 Table) and a structure of EO8PO47EO8 as evidenced by Bodratti (p.8 Figure 4). The composition further comprises a sulfonated acrylic acid copolymer (para 0118). The recommended dosage for a unit dose product is placed in a pouch (para 0237). The composition further comprises a bleach catalyst (para 0110, 0138). The composition further comprises a chelant (para 0068).
The limitation of “dishwashing detergent” is regarded as an intended use limitation. The claiming of a new use, function or unknown property does not necessarily make the composition patentable. The intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the composition of the prior art. In the instant case, the intended use fails to create a structural difference, thus, the intended use is not limiting. Please note that when applicant claims a composition in terms of function, and the composition of the prior art appears to be the same, the Examiner may make rejections under both 35 U.S.C 102 and 103. (MPEP 2112)
Denome does not teach the xylanase is present in a wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme (claim 1).
However, Denome does teach the composition comprises enzymes including xylanases where said enzymes are present at levels from about 0.00001% to about 2% enzyme protein by weight of the composition (para 0114), and the composition is placed into a washing machine, and carrying out a washing or cleaning operation (para 0008). Lant teaches cleaning compositions comprising enzymes including xylanases, wherein said enzymes are present in a laundering aqueous wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the active enzyme protein (para 0148).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to present xylanase in a wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme, since Denome and Lant both disclose a cleaning composition comprises enzymes including xylanase, and Lant discloses that enzymes are present in a laundering aqueous wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the active enzyme protein. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to present xylanase in a wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a cleaning composition.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) in view of Lant et al (US 2019/0264140 A1; 8/29/2019.), as evidenced by BASF (BASF TI/ES 1026 e. 2005;1-16.) and Bodratti et al (J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9(11):1-24.) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9 and 14 above, further in view of Lant et al (US 8,349,789 B2; 1/8/2013.).
Denome does not teach the bleach catalyst comprises a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst (claim 10).
However, Denome does teach the composition comprises a bleach catalyst, and the composition is placed into a washing machine along with the laundry to be washed, and carrying out a washing or cleaning operation (para 0008). Lant teaches a laundry composition (Title) comprising bleach catalysts (col.4 line 11), wherein if desired, the composition can be catalyzed by means of a manganese compound, such compounds and levels of use are well known in the art (col.13 line 1-3), useful cobalt bleach catalysts are known in the art, and readily prepared by known procedures (col.13 line 6-9).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst, since Denome and Lant both disclose a household care composition comprises bleach catalysts, and Lant discloses that a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst are well known and routinely used within a household care composition. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to incorporate a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a composition.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.) in view of Lant et al (US 2019/0264140 A1; 8/29/2019.), as evidenced by BASF (BASF TI/ES 1026 e. 2005;1-16.) and Bodratti et al (J. Funct. Biomater. 2018;9(11):1-24.) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9 and 14 above, further in view of Collins et al (FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2005;29:3-23.).
Denome does not teach the xylanase is from GH family 11 (claim 11).
However, Denome does teach the composition comprises xylanases.
Collins teaches GH family 11 is monospecific and consists solely of xylanases, these xylanases are “true xylanases” (p.10 col right – para 3), and family 11 has more members with a demonstrated activity on xylan (p.6 Table 1).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate xylanase from GH family 11, since Denome discloses a composition comprises xylanases, and Collins discloses that xylanases from GH family 11 are the most typical and true xylanases known to have higher specific activity for xylans. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to incorporate xylanase from GH family 11, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a composition.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11-13 of co-pending Application No. 18/325,455 (referred to as the ‘455 application) in view of Denome et al (US 2018/0216050 A1; 8/2/2018.), Lant et al (US 2019/0264140 A1; 8/29/2019. Referred to as Lant (2019).) and Lant et al (US 8,349,789 B2; 1/8/2013. Referred to as Lant (2013).).
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11-13 of the ‘455 application recites a dishwashing detergent composition comprising a xylanase and a sulphonated carboxylate polymer, wherein the xylanase is from GH family 11, the sulphonated carboxylate polymer comprises a sulphonated acrylic polymer and/or a sulphonated acrylic/maleic polymer. The composition further comprises an ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer having a cloud point of 20°C or greater, wherein the block copolymer has structure of EOx1POy1EOx2. The composition is in the form of a unit dose pouch. The composition further comprises a bleach catalyst and a chelant.
‘455 application does not teach the claimed amount of ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer (claim 1).
However, ‘455 application does teach the dishwashing detergent composition comprises an ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer.
Denome teaches a composition comprising xylanases (para 0114) and from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% of an ethylene oxide-propylene oxide-ethylene oxide (EOx1POyEOx2) triblock copolymer (para 0035-0036, 0051).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed amount of an ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer, since ‘455 application and Denome both disclose a cleaning composition comprises xylanases and from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% of an ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer, and Denome discloses that the ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer is present from about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt%. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to incorporate the claimed amount of an ethylene oxide - propylene oxide block copolymer, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a dishwashing detergent composition.
References cited above do not teach the xylanase is present in a wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme (claim 1).
However, ‘455 application does teach the cleaning composition comprises xylanase. Lant (2019) teaches cleaning compositions comprising enzymes including xylanases, wherein said enzymes are present in a laundering aqueous wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the active enzyme protein (para 0148).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to present xylanase in a wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme, since ‘455 application and Lant (2019) both disclose a cleaning composition comprises enzymes including xylanase, and Lant (2019) discloses that enzymes are present in a laundering aqueous wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the active enzyme protein. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to present xylanase in a wash liquor in an amount of from 0.01 ppm to 1000 ppm of the enzyme, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a dishwashing detergent composition.
References cited above do not teach the bleach catalyst comprises a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst (claim 10).
However, ‘455 application does teach the dishwashing detergent composition comprises bleach catalysts. Lant (2013) teaches a laundry composition (Title) comprising bleach catalysts (col.4 line 11), wherein if desired, the composition can be catalyzed by means of a manganese compound, such compounds and levels of use are well known in the art (col.13 line 1-3), useful cobalt bleach catalysts are known in the art, and readily prepared by known procedures (col.13 line 6-9).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst, since ‘455 application and Lant (2013) both disclose a household care composition comprises bleach catalysts, and Lant (2013) discloses that a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst are well known and routinely used within a household care composition. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to incorporate a manganese or cobalt-containing bleach catalyst, with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining a dishwashing detergent composition.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that cited references fail to describe the claimed amounts with sufficient specificity. However, these arguments are moot since those rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights