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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 02/05/2026 and 05/08/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/15/2026.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 21 is canceled and claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13, and 16 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, with respect to 04/15/2026 have fully been considered. The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35. U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Foley (WO2000046333A1) are withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment to claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13, and 16. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made below.
The applicant argues Foley does not teach a liquid cleaning composition “for removing starch and oil-based soils” as required by the newly amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Foley teaches a liquid dishwashing composition with enhanced removal of greasy/oily soils (see Page 10, lines 27-28). The examiner also asserts the phrase “for removing starch and oil-based soils” appears in the preamble, and thus, is not accorded any patentable weight, since it does not breathe life and meaning into the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.
The applicant also argues Foley does not teach 1-5 wt% amine oxide surfactant in the cleaning composition as required by the newly amended claim 1. However, Foley teaches the amine oxide amphoteric surfactant to be present at 0.5-10 wt% of the composition (see Page 9, lines 25-30; see Page 10, lines 13-15).
The applicant also argues Foley does not teach a liquid dishwashing composition with a pH of “greater than about 8”. Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive. Foley teaches a dishwashing detergent composition comprising amylase enzyme at a pH of greater than about 8 (see Abstract). “About 8” is not further defined and can be understood to include 8.5. Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges taught by Foley "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Applicant argues unexpected results. Applicant argues their invention found lower pH (pH of 7 or lower) has added benefit that this is not found in the art.
The examiner asserts that applicant’s results of improved enzymatic and surfactant cleaning performance of starch and oil-based soils at a pH of 7 (see Examples 2-4, Specification) are not commensurate in scope with newly amended claim 1, as required in MPEP 716.02(d). Instant claim 1 requires “a pH from about 4 to about 8.” Therefore, the applicant has not shown that the unexpected results occur over the entire claim range.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 depends from claim 3 which teaches the composition to comprise of a nonionic surfactant. However, claim 3 depends from claim 1 which teaches the use of an amine oxide surfactant. It is unclear whether the 2-40 wt% surfactant range recited in claim 8 refers to the nonionic surfactant of claim 3, or the total surfactant in the composition. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 8 is presently being interpreted as 2-40 wt% of total surfactant in the composition.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et. al (WO2000046333A1) hereinafter Foley.
With regards to claims 1-3 and 7, Foley teaches a dishwashing detergent composition comprising amylase enzyme at a pH of greater than about 8 (see Abstract). The instant claim recites “a pH from about 4 to about 8” which can include 8.5 and hence, overlaps with the pH range taught by Foley. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). Foley also generally teaches the use of an amine oxide amphoteric surfactant at preferably 0.5-10 wt% of the composition (see Page 9, lines 25-30; see Page 10, lines 13-15). In Examples 1-5, Foley teaches liquid dishwashing compositions comprising AES surfactant, 4 wt% C12-C14 amine oxide surfactant, nonionic surfactant, amylase, and water to balance among others with final pH values of at least 8.5 (see Table 1).
Although Foley does not disclose a buffer system in Examples 1-5, Foley teaches the use of a preferred buffer system comprising 2.5 % citrate, 0.75% potassium carbonate, 1.75% sodium carbonate among others (see Page 7, line 20). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Example 1-5 with the citrate, potassium carbonate, and sodium carbonate buffering system. A person of skill in art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing acidic stresses created by food soils, and providing a more alkaline pH in the composition (see Page 7, lines 1-4).
With regards to claims 4-5, Foley teaches the use of polyalkylene oxide condensates of alkyl phenols, alcohol ethoxylates, EO/PO copolymers, and alkyl polysaccharides as useful nonionic surfactants (see Page 9, lines 20-31). In Examples 1-5, Foley teaches the use of C11 alkyyl ethoxylated surfactant containing 9 ethoxy groups or C10 alkyl ethoxylated surfactant containing 8 ethoxy groups (see Table 1).
With regards to claim 6, Foley teaches the use of a preferred buffer system comprising 2.5 % citrate, 0.75% potassium carbonate, 1.75% sodium carbonate (a salt of a weak acid) among others (see Page 7, line 20).
With regards to claim 8, Foley teaches the dishwashing composition to generally comprise 0.0001-5 wt% amylase (see Page 2, line 18), 5-90 wt% surfactant (see Page 7, lines 31-32), and a 0.1-15 wt% buffering agent (see Page 7, line 5). Water is taught to balance (between 54-70 wt%) in Examples 1-5 (see Table 1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 9, Foley teaches the additional use of soil release polymers, polymeric dispersants, polysaccharides, abrasives, tarnish inhibitors, builders, enzymes, dyes, buffers, antifungal or mildew control agents, insect repellents, perfumes, hydrotropes, thickeners, processing aids, brighteners, anti-corrosive aids, stabilizers antioxidants and chelants (see Page 14, lines 31-34).
With regards to claim 10, Foley teaches the use 0.01-20 wt% of diol or polymeric glycol solvents (see Page 13, line 34; see also Page 14, lines 8-10).
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 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
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights