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 .
Non-Final Rejection
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2024 and 11/8/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 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].
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.
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 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 also [0182-0184] on page 13. Examiner notes that the 0.01 mg/ml endpoint is equal to 0.001 wt%, which is below the claimed range, however the teaching of at least 0.01 mg/ml guides one of ordinary skill to greater than 0.001 wt% which disclosure encompass the claimed range. Also See the attached search notes explaining the common knowledge that β-hexosaminidase (EC 3.2.1.52) is a broader term that encompasses a family of enzymes, including N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase, that can hydrolyze various oligosaccharides.
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].
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 limitation is met by Hansen et al. page 13,[0186] teaching the detergent composition includes a mixture of one or more nonionic surfactants and one or more anionic surfactants at a level of from about 0.1% to 60% by weight.
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 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.
Conclusion
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