DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Application Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicants’ amendment to the claims filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged.
5. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/30/2026.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
6. Acknowledgement is made of this Non-provisional Application filed on 11/03/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The IDSs filed on 01/15/2024, 06/03/2025, and 06/17/2026 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 12 is objected to in the recitation of genus and species names of bacteria, and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the recited genus and species names be italicized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-18 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 1-18 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is a term of degree and the examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no examples or teachings that can be used for ascertaining the variance intended by the recited term of degree. Moreover, there is nothing in the specification or prior art of record to indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art could have ascertain the scope of the recited degree. It is suggested that applicant clarify the meaning of the claims. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162 (Feb. 9, 2011), page 7165.
Further regarding claim 4, the recitation of “11.5” is indefinite because it is unclear how you can have half of an isomer.
Further regarding claims 1-18 and 20, the term "substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is a term of degree and the examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no examples or teachings that can be used for ascertaining the variance intended by the recited term of degree. Moreover, there is nothing in the specification or prior art of record to indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art could have ascertain the scope of the recited degree. It is suggested that applicant clarify the meaning of the claims. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162 (Feb. 9, 2011), page 7165.
Further regarding claims 11 and 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 20, the claim attempts to recite a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. Specifically, the claims recite “use of a detergent composition”, however, it is unclear what the process steps are supposed to be which results in laundering fabric. It is noted, the recitation of a “use” without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is practiced is deemed indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
11. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is unclear if “Use of a detergent composition” is a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. See MPEP See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claim(s) 1-12, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vinson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0064569 A1, published 03/03/2022; cited on IDS filed on 06/03/2025).
15. With respect to claim 1, Vinson et al. teach a detergent composition comprising from about 1% to about 80% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, wherein said first surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II, wherein about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=11, wherein about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0, wherein from about 0.0001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, a xyloglucanase, a perfume and is substantially free of optical brightener [see paragraphs 0005-0024, 0092, 0099; Table 14]. The disclosure of “may” contain an optical brightener is interpreted as “substantially free of optical brightener” as the term “may” has the meaning of it could or could not be present, and in view of the indefiniteness of the term “substantially”.
With respect to claim 2, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition wherein about 15% to about 40% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=1 [see paragraph 0022].
With respect to claim 3, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition wherein about 60% to about 90% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n<3 [see paragraph 0022].
With respect to claim 4, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition wherein about 90% to about 100% of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=11 [see paragraph 0022].
With respect to claim 5, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% (encompasses the range) by weight of the composition of a second surfactant, wherein said second surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III and surfactants of Formula IV, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the second surfactant are isomers having m+n=9, wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the second surfactant are surfactants of Formula IV, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety [see paragraph 0025].
With respect to claim 6, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% (encompasses the range) by weight of the composition of a second surfactant, wherein said second surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III and surfactants of Formula IV, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the second surfactant are isomers having m+n=9, wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the second surfactant are surfactants of Formula IV, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III have n=0 [see paragraphs 0025-0027].
With respect to claim 7, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% (encompasses the range) by weight of the composition of a second surfactant, wherein said second surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III and surfactants of Formula IV, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the second surfactant are isomers having m+n=9, wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the second surfactant are surfactants of Formula IV, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein 15% to 40% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III have n=1 [see paragraphs 0025-0027].
With respect to claim 8, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% (encompasses the range) by weight of the composition of a second surfactant, wherein said second surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III and surfactants of Formula IV, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the second surfactant are isomers having m+n=9, wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the second surfactant are surfactants of Formula IV, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein 50% to 90% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III have n<3 [see paragraphs 0025-0027].
With respect to claim 9, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% (encompasses the range) by weight of the composition of a second surfactant, wherein said second surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III and surfactants of Formula IV, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the second surfactant are isomers having m+n=9, wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the second surfactant are surfactants of Formula IV, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein about 25% to about 50% by weight of the second surfactant mixture are isomers of Formula III with n=0, from 15% to 40% by weight of the second surfactant mixture are isomers of Formular III with n=1, and from about 5% to about 20% by weight of the second surfactant mixture are isomers of Formula III with n=2 [see paragraphs 0025-0027].
With respect to claim 10, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% (encompasses the range) by weight of the composition of a second surfactant, wherein said second surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III and surfactants of Formula IV, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the second surfactant are isomers having m+n=9, wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the second surfactant are surfactants of Formula IV, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein up to about 35% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula III have n>2 [see paragraphs 0025-0027].
With respect to claim 11, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition wherein X is selected from sulfates, alkoxylated alkyl sulfates, sulfonates, amine oxides, polyalkoxylates, polyhydroxy moieties, phosphate esters, glycerol sulfonates, polygluconates, polyphosphate
esters, phosphonates, sulfosuccinates, sulfosuccaminates, polyalkoxylated carboxylates, glucamides, taurinates, sarcosinates, glycinates, isethionates, dialkanolamides, monoalkanolamides, monoalkanolamide sulfates, diglycolamides, diglycolamide sulfates, glycerol esters, glycerol ester sulfates, glycerol ethers, glycerol ether sulfates,
polyglycerol ethers, polyglycerol ether sulfates, sorbitan esters, polyalkoxylated sorbitan esters, annnonioalkanesulfonates, amidopropyl betaines, alkylated quats, alkyated/ polyhydroxyalkylated quats, alkylated/polyhydroxylatedoxypropyl quats, imidazolines, 2-yl-succinates, sulfonated alkyl esters, sulfonated fatty acids, and mixtures thereof [see paragraph 0025].
With respect to claim 12, Vinson et al. teach wherein the xyloglucanase is obtained from a bacterial source [see paragraphs 0138-0171].
With respect to claim 14, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition wherein the composition may contain borate [see The disclosure of “may” contain a borate is interpreted as “substantially free of vorate” as the term “may” has the meaning of it could or could not be present, and in view of the indefiniteness of the term “substantially” [see paragraphs 0173].
With respect to claim 15, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition comprises an additional surfactant selected from non-ionic surfactants, alkyl sulfates, alkyl benzene, and alkyl alkoxylated sulfates [see paragraphs 0071-0077].
With respect to claim 16, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition comprising a non-ionic surfactant derived from natural sources [see paragraphs 0082-0084].
With respect to claim 17, Vinson et al. teach the composition wherein from about 0.1 to 60% (encompasses range) is alkoxylated alkyl sulfate surfactant [see paragraphs 0071-0077].
With respect to claim 18, Vinson et al. teach the detergent composition wherein said composition is selected from a granular detergent, a bar-form detergent, a liquid laundry detergent, a gel detergent, a single-phase or multi-phase unit dose detergent, a detergent contained in a single-phase or multi-phase or multi-compartment water soluble pouch, a
multi-compartment non-dissolvable package, a liquid hand dishwashing composition, a laundry pretreat product, a detergent contained on or in a porous substrate or nonwoven sheet, an automatic dish-washing detergent, a hard surface cleaner, a fabric softener composition, and
mixtures thereof [see paragraph 0269].
With respect to claim 20, Vinson et al. Vinson et al. teach a detergent composition comprising from about 1% to about 80% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, wherein said first surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II, wherein about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=11, wherein about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0, wherein from about 0.0001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, a xyloglucanase, and a perfume [see paragraphs 0005-0024, 0092, 0099; Table 14].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0064569 A1, published 03/03/2022; cited on IDS filed on 06/03/2025) in view of Schnorr et al. (WO 01/62903 A1; examiner cited).
18. The relevant teachings of Vinson et al. as applied to claims 1-12, 14-18 and 20 are set forth in the 102(a)(1) rejection above.
With respect to claim 13, Vinson et al. teach a detergent composition comprising from about 1% to about 80% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, wherein said first surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II, wherein about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=11, wherein about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0, wherein from about 0.0001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II, and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, a xyloglucanase, a perfume and is substantially free of optical brightener [see paragraphs 0005-0024, 0092, 0099; Table 14].
However, Vinson et al. does not teach the detergent composition of claim 13, wherein the xylogucanase has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1-7, or a xyloglucanase that has an amino acid sequence having at least 60%, at least 65%, at least 70%, at least 75%, at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90%, at least 95%, at least 96%, at least 97%, at least 98%, at least 99% or at least 100% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NOs: 1-7.
Schnorr et al. xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 [see Abstract; alignment attached as APPENDIX A].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vinson et al. and Schnorr et al. to include the xyloglucanase of Schnorr et al. in the compositions of Vinson et al. because Vinson et al. teach detergent compositions comprising xyloglucanases. Schnorr et al. teach xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Vinson et al. and Schnorr et al. because Schnorr et al. acknowledges that xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,807,829 in view of Schnorr et al. (WO 01/62903 A1; examiner cited).
Claims 1-23 of the ‘829 patent recite a detergent composition comprising from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, wherein said first surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactant of Formula II, wherein from about 90% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=11; wherein between about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of the surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0; wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein the first surfactant does not contain isomers of Formula I with n equal to or greater than 6.
However, ‘829 patent does not teach the detergent composition having a xyloglucanase.
Schnorr et al. xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 [see Abstract; alignment attached as APPENDIX A].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recitations of the ‘829 patent with the teachings of Schnorr et al. to include the xyloglucanase of Schnorr et al. in the compositions of ‘829. Schnorr et al. teach xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability and would have been motivated to combine the recitations of the ‘829 patent with the teachings of Schnorr et al. because Schnorr et al. acknowledges that xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
21. Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,587 in view of Schnorr et al. (WO 01/62903 A1; examiner cited).
Claims 1-16 of the ‘587 patent recite a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a liquid laundry detergent composition and a water-soluble film; wherein the liquid laundry detergent composition comprises a first anionic surfactant, wherein said first anionic surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactant of Formula II, wherein from about 90% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=9; wherein between about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of the surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0; wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety, wherein the first surfactant does not contain isomers of Formula I with n equal to or greater than 6.
However, ‘587 patent does not teach the detergent composition having a xyloglucanase.
Schnorr et al. xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 [see Abstract; alignment attached as APPENDIX A].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recitations of the ‘587 patent with the teachings of Schnorr et al. to include the xyloglucanase of Schnorr et al. in the compositions of ‘587. Schnorr et al. teach xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability and would have been motivated to combine the recitations of the ‘587 patent with the teachings of Schnorr et al. because Schnorr et al. acknowledges that xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
22. Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,183 in view of Schnorr et al. (WO 01/62903 A1; examiner cited).
Claims 1-16 of the ‘183 patent recite a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a liquid laundry detergent composition and a water-soluble film; wherein the liquid laundry detergent composition comprises a first anionic surfactant, wherein said first anionic surfactant comprises a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactant of Formula II, wherein from about 90% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n=9; wherein between about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of the surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0; wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; wherein X sulfate,
However, ‘183 patent does not teach the detergent composition having a xyloglucanase.
Schnorr et al. xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 [see Abstract; alignment attached as APPENDIX A].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recitations of the ‘183 patent with the teachings of Schnorr et al. to include the xyloglucanase of Schnorr et al. in the compositions of ‘183. Schnorr et al. teach xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability and would have been motivated to combine the recitations of the ‘183 patent with the teachings of Schnorr et al. because Schnorr et al. acknowledges that xyloglucanases belonging to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases having high performance in conventional detergent compositions. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
23. Status of the claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 19 stands withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for an allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-3537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8AM to 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, Manjunath 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.
/PAUL J HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
APPENDIX A
Schnorr et al. with SEQ ID NO: 1
Query Match 100.0%; Score 2781; Length 1352;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 524; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 VVHGQTAKTITIKVDTFKDRKPISPYIYGTNQDLAGDENMAARRLGGNRMTGYNWENNMS 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 36 VVHGQTAKTITIKVDTFKDRKPISPYIYGTNQDLAGDENMAARRLGGNRMTGYNWENNMS 95
Qy 61 NAGSDWQQSSDNYLCSNGGLTQAECEKPGAVTTSFHDQSLKLGTYSLVTLPMAGYVAKDG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 96 NAGSDWQQSSDNYLCSNGGLTQAECEKPGAVTTSFHDQSLKLGTYSLVTLPMAGYVAKDG 155
Qy 121 NGSVQESEKAPSARWNQVVNAKNAPFQLQPDLNDNRVYVDEFVHFLVNKYGTASTKAGVK 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 156 NGSVQESEKAPSARWNQVVNAKNAPFQLQPDLNDNRVYVDEFVHFLVNKYGTASTKAGVK 215
Qy 181 GYALDNEPALWSHTHPRIHGEKVGAKELVDRSVSLSKAVKAIDAGAEVFGPVLYGFGAYK 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 216 GYALDNEPALWSHTHPRIHGEKVGAKELVDRSVSLSKAVKAIDAGAEVFGPVLYGFGAYK 275
Qy 241 DLQTAPDWDSVKGNYSWFVDYYLDQMRLSSQVEGKRLLDVFDVHWYPEAMGGGIRITNEV 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 276 DLQTAPDWDSVKGNYSWFVDYYLDQMRLSSQVEGKRLLDVFDVHWYPEAMGGGIRITNEV 335
Qy 301 GNDETKKARMQAPRTLWDPTYKEDSWIAQWNSEFLPILPRLKQSVDKYYPGTKLAMTEYS 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 336 GNDETKKARMQAPRTLWDPTYKEDSWIAQWNSEFLPILPRLKQSVDKYYPGTKLAMTEYS 395
Qy 361 YGGENDISGGIAMTDVLGILGKNDVYMANYWKLKDGVNNYVSAAYKLYRNYDGKNSTFGD 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 396 YGGENDISGGIAMTDVLGILGKNDVYMANYWKLKDGVNNYVSAAYKLYRNYDGKNSTFGD 455
Qy 421 TSVSAQTSDIVNSSVHASVTNASDKELHLVVMNKSMDSAFDAQFDLSGAKTYISGKVWGF 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 456 TSVSAQTSDIVNSSVHASVTNASDKELHLVVMNKSMDSAFDAQFDLSGAKTYISGKVWGF 515
Qy 481 DKNSSQIKEAAPITQISGNRFTYTVPPLTAYHIVLTTGNDTSPV 524
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 516 DKNSSQIKEAAPITQISGNRFTYTVPPLTAYHIVLTTGNDTSPV 559
Prosecution Insights