DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claims 11-20 are newly presented in the response filed 6/24/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US-20200291331-A1) in view of Marcos et al. (EP3617299) Google Patents Translation is maintained.
The rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 20200291331A1) and Marcos et al. (EP3617299), and further in view of Ooehlenschlaeger et al. (US 10,626,354 B2) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge there is no motivation to combine Hansen and Marcos.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Hansen et al. is properly combined with Marcos as they are both in the in the analogous art of amino based alkoxylate detergents as required by the claims. Because Hansen et al. do not specifically teach a polyalkoxylated amine having a weight-average molecular weight Mw in the range of 600 g/mol to 10,000 g/mol, which is obtainable by reacting ammonia or primary alkyl or hydroxyalkylamines having a molecular weight of less than 200 g/mol with alkylene oxide, Hansen general disclosure to a cleaning composition comprising hexoxaminidase with a model detergent MC comprising 1% TEA with ethylene oxide is combined with Marcos teaching “an alkoxylated amino alcohol which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation, preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units in each case”. Marcos et al. teach the claimed average molecular weight amino based alkoxylates which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation having Mw of 600-10,000 g/mol provides for strengthening the primary washing power of aqueous surfactant based detergents. See the Google Patents Translation paragraphs 4-7 under the Description on page 2 of the attached pdf. Thus, one of ordinary skill is motivated to use the claimed higher MW polyalkoxylated amine as taught by Marcos in the detergent of Hansen since the higher MW amino based alkoxylates obtained from TEA by propoxylation preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units in each case” having a Mw of 600-10,000 g/mol beneficially provides for strengthening the washing power of aqueous surfactant based detergents. Accordingly the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US-20200291331-A1) in view of Marcos et al. (EP3617299) Google Patents Translation attached.
With respect to claim 1, Hansen et al. teach a detergent preparation comprising hexosaminidase preparation. see pg.7 [0109].
Claim 1 limitation to 0.5 to 10 wt% of a polyalkoxylated amine is disclosed by Hansen et al. teaching a model detergent MC comprising 1% TEA with ethylene oxide. See page 26, [0358].
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the detergent does not comprise a bleaching agent is taught in [0194] Hansen et al. teach 0% bleach. See page 14.
Hansen et al. do not specifically teach a polyalkoxylated amine having a weight-average molecular weight Mw in the range of 600 g/mol to 10,000 g/mol, which is obtainable by reacting ammonia or primary alkyl or hydroxyalkylamines having a molecular weight of less than 200 g/mol with alkylene oxide.
In the analogous art of amino based alkoxylate detergents, Marcos teaches “an alkoxylated amino alcohol which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation, preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units in each case”. Marcos et al. teach the claimed average molecular weight amino based alkoxylates which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation having Mw of 600-10,000 g/mol provides for strengthening the primary washing power of aqueous surfactant based detergents. See the Google Patents Translation paragraphs 4-7 under the Description on page 2 of the attached pdf providing motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the higher molecular weight polyalkyoxyalted amine to achieve better cleaning.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Hansen, by substituting the TEA of Hansen with the 600-10000 g/mol polyalkyoxylated amine of Marcos. This would create a composition with enhanced washing power. Furthermore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would find the instantly claimed product-by-process limitation obvious, since Marcos teaches a similar reaction creating the polyalkoxylated amine. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-3, 12-13 limitations to wherein the detergent preparation comprises 0.01 to 5 wt%, ß-hexosaminidases is taught in [0175] on page 11 teaching at least 0.01 mg / mL hexosaminidases having beta - N acetylglucosaminidase activity. See [0182-0184] on page 13. [0184] copied herein:.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which disclosure encompasses claims 2, 12-13.
Claims 4-5 limitations to wherein the detergent preparation comprises, 1 to 8 wt%, polyalkoxylated amine that can be obtained by reacting triethanolamine with alkene oxides is met by Marcos teaching 1-15% alkoxylated amino alcohol which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation, preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units in each case. See page 2 of the translation, 6 paragraphs under the Description and page 3 middle paragraph. Examiner notes that Hansen et al. teaching a model detergent MC comprising 1% TEA with ethylene oxide. See page 26, [0358] and page 14, [0192]. One of ordinary skill is motivated by the combined teachings to replace the low molecular weight triethanolamine in the hexosaminidase detergent of Hansen with the higher molecular weight obtained from triethanolamine by propoxylation with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units as taught by Marcos to achieve a more powerful detergent. Because Hansen et al. already teach a detergent for cleaning medical devices comprising hexosaminidase with triethanolamine, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that higher molecular weight obtained from triethanolamine by propoxylation preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units as taught by Marcos to achieve a more powerful detergent.
Hansen et al. page 13, [0186] teaching about 1-40%, more preferably 15-25% anionic surfactant which range overlaps with the range required in claim 6.
Hansen et al. teach about 0.2 % to about 40 % by weight of a nonionic surfactant (see page 13, [0187]) which range overlaps with the range required in claim 7.
Claim 8 and 18 limitations are met by Hansen et al. page 13,[0186] teaching the detergent composition includes a mixture of 0.2-40% nonionic surfactants and 1-40% anionic surfactants guides one of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of nonionic to anionic surfactants within the broadly claimed 3:1 to 1:2 range. Hansen et al. [0178] that the hexosaminidase enzyme is stable in both nonionic surfactants and anionic surfactants. And one of ordinary skill is motivated to arrive at the claimed ratios of nonionic:anionic as disclosed by [0356]-[0357] on page 26 teaching (6.6% or 11%) AEO nonionic with (7.2% or 12%) LAS+(4.2% or 5%) AEOS anionic surfactants and thus the claimed ratio range does not provide a contribution over the teachings of Hansen.
Claims 11, 16-17 is met by Marcos teaching 1-15% alkoxylated amino alcohol which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation, preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units in each case. See page 2 of the translation, 6 paragraphs under the Description copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
384
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Along with page 3 middle paragraph copied herein: providing motivation to exclude bleaching agents as required by claim 1, in a composition for cleaning.
PNG
media_image3.png
650
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Hansen et al. teach cleaning medical devices with a model detergent MC comprising 1% TEA with ethylene oxide. See page 26, [0358] and page 14, [0192]. One of ordinary skill is motivated by the combined teachings to replace the low molecular weight triethanolamine in the hexosaminidase detergent of Hansen with the higher molecular weight obtained from triethanolamine by propoxylation with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units as taught by Marcos to achieve a more powerful detergent. Because Hansen et al. already teach a detergent for cleaning medical devices comprising hexosaminidase with triethanolamine, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that higher molecular weight obtained from triethanolamine by propoxylation preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units as taught by Marcos to achieve a more powerful detergent.
Claim 14 limitation to 0% bleaching systems includes sources of hydrogen peroxide is explained in [0194] on pg.14.
Claim 15 limitation to further comprising enzymes in an amount of 0.5% to 6wt% is taught in [0203-0204] and abstract teaching a mix of enzymes and table 4-5 on page 27 teach 2-10 ug/ml enzymes along with Marcos teaching cleaning compositions generally comprise upto 10% by weight of lipases, cutinases, amylases, pullulanases, mannanases, cellulases, hemicellulases, xylanases and peroxidases and mixtures thereof, for example amylases such as Termamyl®, Amylase-LT®, Maxamyl®, Duramyl ® and / or Purafect® OxAm, lipases such as Lipolase®, Lipomax®, Lumafast®, Lipozym® and / or Lipex®, cellulases such as Celluzyme® and / or Carezyme®. Enzymes obtained from fungi or bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Streptomyces griseus, Humicola lanuginosa, Humicola insolens, Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes or Pseudomonas cepacia are particularly suitable. The enzymes which may be used can be adsorbed on carriers and / or embedded in coating substances in order to protect them against premature inactivation. See page 9, 1st full paragraph in the Google Patents Translation of Marcos guiding one of ordinary skill optimize the amount within the claimed range of 0.5% to 6wt% enzymes in general.
With respect to claim 20, Hansen et al. teach a composition for cleaning medical devices on contact with a detergent comprising at least 0.01 mg/mL hexosaminidase broadly encompassing the claim 20 amount of from 0.01 to 5 wt% (see claims 1 and 8).
Claim 20 limitation to 0.5 to 10 wt% of a polyalkoxylated amine is disclosed by Hansen et al. teaching a model detergent MC comprising 1% TEA with ethylene oxide. See page 26, [0358].
Claim 20 limitation to wherein the detergent does not comprise a bleaching agent is taught in [0194] Hansen et al. teach 0% bleach. See page 14.
Claim 20 limitation to a non-ionic surfactant present in an amount of from 12 to 30 wt%, Hansen et al. teach about 0.2 % to about 40 % by weight of a nonionic surfactant (see page 13, [0187]) which overlaps with the range required in claim 20.
With respect to claim 20 limitation to an anionic surfactant present in an amount of from 12 to 30 wt%, Hansen et al. page 13, [0186] teach preferably 15-25% anionic surfactant which range overlaps with the range required in claim 20.
With respect to claim 20 limitation to a weight ratio of the non-ionic surfactant to the anionic surfactant is from 3:1 to 1:2, Hansen et al. page 13,[0186] guides one of ordinary skill to a detergent composition of a mixture of 0.2-40% nonionic surfactants and 1-40% anionic surfactants and motivates optimization as Hansen et al. [0178] teach the hexosaminidase enzyme is stable in both nonionic surfactants and anionic surfactants. And one of ordinary skill is motivated to arrive at the claimed ratios of nonionic:anionic as disclosed by [0356]-[0357] on page 26 teaching (6.6% or 11%) AEO nonionic with (7.2% or 12%) LAS+(4.2% or 5%) AEOS anionic surfactants and thus the claimed ratio range does not provide a contribution over the teachings of Hansen.
Hansen et al. do not specifically teach claim 20 limitation to a polyalkoxylated amine having a weight-average molecular weight Mw in the range of 600 g/mol to 10,000 g/mol, which is obtainable by reacting ammonia or primary alkyl or hydroxyalkylamines having a molecular weight of less than 200 g/mol with alkylene oxide as required by claim 20.
In the analogous art of amino based alkoxylate detergents, Marcos teaches “an alkoxylated amino alcohol which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation, preferably with a length of the three side arms of 15 propylene oxide (PO) units in each case”. Marcos et al. teach the claimed average molecular weight amino based alkoxylates which can be obtained from triethanolamine (TEA) by propoxylation having Mw of 600-10,000 g/mol provides for strengthening the primary washing power of aqueous surfactant based detergents. See the Google Patents Translation paragraphs 4-7 under the Description on page 2 of the attached pdf providing motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the higher molecular weight polyalkyoxyalted amine to achieve better cleaning.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Hansen, by substituting the TEA of Hansen with the 600-10000 g/mol polyalkyoxylated amine of Marcos. This would create a composition with enhanced washing power. Furthermore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would find the instantly claimed product-by-process limitation obvious, since Marcos teaches a similar reaction creating the polyalkoxylated amine. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 20200291331A1) and Marcos et al. (EP3617299) as relied upon for claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Ooehlenschlaeger et al. (US 10,626,354 B2).
With respect to the detergent portion unit of claim 9 limitation to wherein a water-soluble film which completely surrounds the detergent preparation, Hansen et al. page 16, [0202], teach the composition is in the form of a unit dose pouch having one or more compartments comprising a regular or compact powder, a granule, a paste, a gel, or a regular, compact or concentrated liquid. (See also page 10, [0253]).
However, Hansen et al. do not explicitly teach the water-soluble film of claim 9 and nor its introduction into the washing liquor of a textile washing machine as required by claim 10. While it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill understands that the purpose of the unit dose pouch of Hansen et al. is to dissolve in the wash liquor of a laundry washing machine, such is not explicit in Hansen et al.
In the analogous detergent art, Ooehlenschlaeger et al. col.34, describe the pouches that are water-dissolvable pouches, made from water soluble film comprising hexosaminidase for deep cleaning of textile (col.2,ln.45-50) and washing machines when the unit dose is incorporated into a household or industrial washing machine. See col.11,ln.49-50 and col.32,ln.16 and col.35, ln.25-35.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the unit dose pouch of Hansen, by substituting water dissolvable pouches made from water soluble film comprising hexosaminidase of Ooehlenschlaeger et al. This would create a water-soluble unit dose pouch. Furthermore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would find the instantly claimed watersoluble film limitation obvious, since Ooehlenschlaeger et al. describe water-dissolvable pouches made from water soluble film comprising hexosaminidase for deep cleaning of textile and washing machines when the unit dose is incorporated into a household or industrial washing machine. Therefore the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US-20200291331-A1) and Marcos et al. (EP3617299) as applied to claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Convents et al. WO1998050512A1.pdf.
Hansen et al. and Marcos et al. do not teach 4-12% water as required by claim 19. Hansen et al. teach their hexosaminase based detergent can be formulated into a bar or concentrate [0253]. Hansen et al. teach a liquid or gel detergent that is not unit dosed typically contain about 20%-90%water. [0253]. And Hansen et al. motivate one of ordinary skill to lower the amount of water in the unit dosed composition by teaching liquid Model Detergents A and B [0356] and [0357] which do not have any water. However, Hansen et al. do not teach the claim 19 limitation to 4-12% water.
In the analogous art of hexosaminidase based detergents, Convent (WO1998050512A1) teach typically the water content of a concentrated detergent is preferably less than 20%. See example 6 of a hexosaminidase bar detergent comprising 4% water does not provide a contribution over the art of record.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hansen, with the claimed 4-12% water as taught by Convents because this would create a concentrated composition. Furthermore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would find optimizing the amount of water to be a routine skill because Hansen et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a concentrate liquid, paste or solid in general and as disclosed by Convent et al. teaching a similar hexosaminidase based detergent with 4% water in a bar and less than 20% water in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings as both are in the analogous art of detergents for cleaning with hexosaminidase.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
