The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 16, 2026.
Claims 1-16 were canceled. Claims 17-35 are newly added.
The objection to claims 14-15 for minor informalities; and the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
The rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitko et al. (US Patent No. 6,878,680) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrases “according to claim 17” in lines 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-14 (6 occurrences) appear to be redundant inasmuch as the same phrase is already recited in line 1. It is suggested that said phrases be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 22 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “at least one source of active oxygen selected from . . . inorganic peroxide . . .” in lines 2-3, and the claim also recites “preferably selected from . . . sodium percarbonate . . . “ in lines 4-5 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets et al. (WO 02/02725, already cited in IDS dated 08/14/2023), hereinafter “Smets.”
Regarding claims 17-20, 22-28 and 31, Smets teaches detergent compositions, including laundry, comprising a cyclodextrin glucanotransferase enzyme and a detergent ingredient selected from a nonionic surfactant, a protease and/or a bleaching agent and such compositions provide excellent removal of starch-containing stains and soils and malodor control; and when formulated as laundry compositions, excellent whiteness maintenance and dingy cleaning (see abstract). Suitable bleaching agents include hydrogen peroxide, PB1 (anhydrous sodium perborate monohydrate), PB4 (sodium perborate tetrahydrate), and percarbonate (i.e., sodium percarbonate) and will typically be present at levels of from 0.1% to 30%, preferably 1% to 20% (see page 29, lines 8-13; page 66, lines 1-5). The preferred bleaching agents are the combination of percarbonate with a bleach activator like tetraacetylethylene-diamine (TAED ) or nonanoyl oxybenzene-sulfonate (NOBS) (see page 29, lines 1-6). The detergent composition can comprise in addition to nonionic surfactants, a surfactant system like anionic and/or cationic and/or ampholytic and/or zwitterionic surfactants (see page 34, lines 28-31) at a level of from 0.1% to 60% by weight, preferably 1 to 35% by weight of the detergent composition (see page 34, lines 33-35). The detergent composition also comprise from 0.001% to 10%, preferably from 0.01% to 2% by weight of polymeric dye transfer inhibiting agents in order to inhibit the transfer of dyes from colored fabrics onto fabrics washed therewith (see page 58, lines 20-27). Especially suitable polymeric dye transfer inhibiting agents are copolymers of N-vinylpyrrolidone and N-vinylimidazole, polyvinylpyrrolidone polymers, among a few selections, or mixtures thereof (see page 58, lines 30-33). The N-vinylpyrrolidone N-vinylimidazole polymers have an average molecular weight range from 5,000-1,000,000, preferably from 5,000-200,000, and highly preferably from 5,000 to 50,000 (see page 61, lines 13-27). The polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) has an average molecular weight of from about 2,500 to about 400,000, preferably from about 5,000 to about 200,000, more preferably from 5,000 to about 50,000 (see page 62, lines 1-14). In Example 3, Smets teaches a granular laundry detergent Composition V which comprises 7 wt% LAS (sodium linear C11-13 alkyl benzene sulphonate), 1 wt% QAS (quaternary ammonium surfactant), 5 wt% PB4 (sodium perborate tetrahydrate, a bleaching agent), 0.5 wt% TAED (tetraacetylethylene-diamine, a bleach activator), 0.004 wt% lipase, 0.0005 wt% cellulase, 0.003 wt% amylase, 0.5 wt% PVPVI (copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and vinylimidazole, with an average molecular weight of 20,000) and 0.5 wt% PVP (polyvinylpyrrolidone, with an average molecular weight of 60,000) (see page 71, line 3 to entire page 72; page 67, middle portion). Smets, however, fails to specifically disclose a laundry composition which comprises between 10 wt% and 60 wt% bleaching agent, copolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone and 1-vinylimidazole (i.e., PVPVI) having a weight average molecular weight of between 40,000 g/mol and 100,000 g/mol and a homopolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone (i.e., PVP) having a weight average molecular weight of between 35,000 g/mol and 45,000 g/mol, and wherein the weight ratio between PVPVI and PVP is between 1.3:1 to 2:1, say as in Composition V in Example 3 as recited in claim 17.
With respect to the amount of the bleaching agent, the molecular weights of the PVPVI and PVP in Composition V in Example 3 above, considering the Smets teaches bleaching agents at levels of from 0.1 wt% to 30 wt%, the PVPVI having an average molecular weight range from 5,000-1,000,000, preferably from 5,000-200,000, and highly preferably from 5,000 to 50,000; and the PVP polymer having an average molecular weight of from about 2,500 to about 400,000, more preferably from 5,000 to about 50,000, as discussed above, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 10-30 wt% for the bleaching agent; PVPVI having an average molecular weight from 40,000-100,000 and PVP having an average molecular weight from 35,000-45,000) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, 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 respect to the weight ratio of the PVPI to the PVP, while Smets is silent as to the specific proportions of each of the PVPVI and PVP when used as a mixture, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the PVPVI and PVP to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the PVPVI and PVP through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above, Smets teaches that the bleaching agents are typically present at levels of from 0.1% to 30% by weight (see page 29, lines 8-13). Smets, however, fails to specifically disclose between 35 wt% and 45 wt% of bleaching agents.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (35wt% vs 30wt%) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 29-30, Smets further teaches that the pH of the treatment solution, i.e., diluted laundry detergent composition in the wash, is preferably from 7 to 12 (see page 63, lines 35-36). In Example 9, Composition IV, the pH measured as 1% solution in distilled water is pH 8 (see page 68, middle portion; pages 78-79).
Regarding claims 32-35, Smets further teaches that the composition may be used in essentially any washing or cleaning methods, including soaking methods, pretreatment methods and methods with rinsing steps (see page 63, lines 9-12), and a conventional laundry method comprises treating soiled fabric with an aqueous liquid having dissolved or dispensed therein an effective amount of the laundry detergent composition (see page 63. lines 14-18), which will reasonably remove stains, which would include a polyphenolic compound like curry stain, because similar detergent compositions and similar washing steps have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly, i.e., remove polyphenolic stains.
Claims 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitko et al. (US Patent No. 6,878,680, already of record), hereinafter “Kitko,” in view of Smets.
Regarding claims 17-31, Kitko teaches a detergent composition, i.e., a particulate solid composition having a bulk density of from 640 g/l to 850 g/l, in particular Composition C which comprises 10 wt% C28AS (sodium C12-C18 alkyl sulphate), 0.4 wt% C28E9 (C12-C18 predominantly linear primary alcohol condensed with an average of 9 moles of ethylene oxide), 2 wt% C45E3S (sodium C14-C15 alkyl sulfate condensed with 3 moles of ethylene oxide), 4 wt% LAS (sodium linear C11-C13 alkyl benzene sulfonate) (a total of 16.4 wt% surfactants), 1.5 wt% PB1 (anhydrous sodium perborate bleach, i.e., an inorganic peroxide bleach), 2.5 wt% NOBS (nonanoyl oxybenzene sulfonate, bleach activator), 0.35 wt% PVI (polyvinyl imidazole), 0.2 wt% PVP (polyvinyl pyrolidone (sic) (also known as homopolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) having a weight average molecular weight of 60000), 0.30 wt% PVNO (polyvinyl pyridine (sic) N-oxide polymer), 0.4 wt% PVPVI (copolymer of polyvinyl pyrolidone (sic) and vinyl imidazol (sic) (also known as copolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone and 1-vinylimidazole), having a molecular weight of 20000) (a total of 1.25 wt% dye transfer inhibitors), 0.4 wt% cellulase, 0.15 wt% protease (see col. 15, lines 61-65; col. 17, line 1 to col. 19, line 40). In addition, Kitko teaches that the detergent composition comprises, in general, from 1% to 50%, by weight of the composition, of one or more bleaching agents like sources of peroxide such as perborate or percarbonate (see col. 13, lines 17-27). In the above Composition C, the weight ratio between PVPVI and PVP is 0.4:0.2 or 2:1. Kitko, however, fails to specifically disclose the amount of the bleaching agent, i.e., sodium perborate, say in the above Composition C, in an amount between 10 wt% and 60 wt% and the copolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone and 1-vinylimidazole (i.e., PVPVI) having a weight average molecular weight of between 40,000 g/mol and 100,000 g/mol and a homopolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone (i.e., PVP) having a weight average molecular weight of between 35,000 g/mol and 45,000 g/mol, as recited in claim 17; and the pH of a dilution of 1:100 at 20oC of the composition which is between 8 and 12 as recited in claim 29, or between 10 and 11 as recited in claim 30.
Smets, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Smets teaches that typical polymeric dye transfer inhibiting agents like N-vinylpyrrolidone N-vinylimidazole polymers have an average molecular weight range from 5,000-1,000,000, preferably from 5,000-200,000, and highly preferably from 5,000 to 50,000 (see page 61, lines 13-27), and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) has an average molecular weight of from about 2,500 to about 400,000, preferably from about 5,000 to about 200,000, more preferably from 5,000 to about 50,000 (see page 62, lines 1-14). Smets also teaches that the pH of the treatment solution, i.e., diluted laundry detergent composition in the wash, is preferably from 7 to 12 (see page 63, lines 35-36). In Example 9, Composition IV, the pH measured as 1% solution in distilled water is pH 8 (see page 68, middle portion; pages 78-79).
Considering that Kitko teaches from 1% to 50 wt%, by weight of the composition, of bleaching agent like perborate as disclosed in col. 13, lines 17-27, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 10 wt% to 50 wt%) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average molecular weight of each of the PVPVI and PVP in ranges within those recited because it is known from Smets that typical dye transfer inhibitors like N-vinylpyrrolidone N-vinylimidazole polymers have an average molecular weight range from 5,000-1,000,000, preferably from 5,000-200,000, and highly preferably from 5,000 to 50,000 (see page 61, lines 13-27), and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) has an average molecular weight of from about 2,500 to about 400,000, preferably from about 5,000 to about 200,000, more preferably from 5,000 to about 50,000, and selection of overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the pH of the composition of Kitko, upon dilution of 1:100 at 20oC of the composition, to be within those recited because it is known from Smets that similar composition have a diluted pH of 8 to 12.
Regarding claims 32-35, Kitko in view of Smets teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Kitko teaches a method of washing fabrics which comprises contacting the fabrics with an aqueous solution comprising the above detergent composition (see col. 11, lines 34-38 and claim 15), which will reasonably remove stains, which would include a polyphenolic compound like curry stain, because similar detergent compositions and similar washing steps have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly, i.e., remove polyphenolic stains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added claims 17-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights