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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/20/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 21 is canceled, claims 11-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 6-8 are currently amended.
The rejection of claim 8 over 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley (WO2000046333A1) are withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made below.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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 2 and 5 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.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “wherein the amylase is selected for enhanced starch and oil removal at a use pH from about 5 to 8” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the use solution should have a pH with an upper limit of 7 as taught by independent claim 1 or an upper limit of 8.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the surfactant comprises" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should read “the nonionic surfactant comprises” as claim 5 is further limiting the nonionic surfactant of claim 1 and not the amine oxide surfactant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hueffer et. al (US20220112479A1) hereinafter Hueffer.
Hueffer teaches a liquid composition comprising of at least one surfactant, and an amylase (see [0336]). With regards to claims 1 and 6-7, the detergent composition can comprise from 0.1-60 wt% surfactant such as amine oxide surfactant (see [0586]). The composition comprises of 0.1-10 wt% citric acid and sodium citrate/sodium formiate in a 9:1 mixture, along with preferably at least 50 wt% water (see [0683]; see also [0583]). Hueffer teaches the inventive enzyme preparation to have a pH from 6-14 (see [0233]).
Although these limitations are not recited in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, the inventive composition of the instant claims is suggested by the general teachings of Hueffer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the amylase enzyme, amine oxide surfactant, weak acid and weak salt buffer, and water into a composition with a pH between 4-7. This combination would have the expected benefit of improve enzyme stability and retaining enzymatic activity (see [0327]).
With regards to claim 2, Hueffer teaches a unit alpha-amylase may liberate 1.0 mg of maltose from starch in 3 min at pH 6.9 at 20° C (see [0071]). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the amylase would have enhanced starch removal between pH of 5-8.
With regards to claim 3-5, Hueffer teaches the mixture of two or more nonionic surfactants in detergent formulations (see [0623]). Suitable examples of nonionic surfactants are EO/PO block polymers, alkyl polyglycosides, ethoxylated and propoxylated sorbitan esters, among others (see [0608]).
With regards to claim 8, an exemplary liquid laundry detergent is taught comprising 0.5 wt% amylase, 4 wt% trisodium citrate/formiate (in a 9:1 ratio hence, 3.6 wt% trisodium citrate is present in the composition), and water to balance (see Table 1). Hueffer also teaches 0.1-60 wt% surfactant such as amine oxide surfactant (see [0586]); 0.1-10 wt% citric acid and sodium citrate/sodium formiate mixture (see [0683]); and preferably at least 50 wt% water (see also [0583]).
With regards to claim 9, additional builders, polymers, alkaline, bleaching systems, fluorescent whitening agents, suds suppressors and stabilizers, hydrotropes, and corrosion inhibitors are taught as suitable components for the detergent composition (see [0574]).
With regards to claim 10, Hueffer teaches the use of 30-80 wt% of an organic solvent in the inventive enzyme concentration (see [0582]). In the exemplary liquid laundry detergent compositions, glycerol, ethanol, and propyleneglycol are all taught as suitable solvents (see Table 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights