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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s response filed June 8, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 11-16 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 9, 2026.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections set forth in the Office action mailed March 6, 2026, have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102015215591, has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 5-10, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102015215591 in view of CN1144537. See English Language Machine Translations of DE102015215591 and CN1144537.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘591 teaches a liquid detergent composition containing a) water of from 5 to 35% by weight, preferably from 8 to 30% by weight, more preferably from 10 to 30% by weight, very preferably from 15 to 25% by weight, b) at least one hydroxycarboxylic acid having 2 to 8 carbon atoms or its salt of 5 to 30% by weight, preferably 10 to 30% by weight, in particular 15 to 25% by weight, based in each case on the acid form, c) at least one nonionic surfactant of from 5 to 55% by weight, preferably from 20 to 55% by weight, in particular from 35 to 50% by weight, d) at least one enzyme, e) at least one alkalinizing agent or its salt of from 5 to 20% by weight, preferably from 7 to 15% by weight, based in each case on the basic form, wherein the composition has a pH of between 2 and 6.5, in particular of from 3 to 5.5, particularly preferably of from 4.0 to 6.0. See pages 1 and 2. Protease enzymes may be used in amounts from 0.001 to 0.1% by weight, amylase enzymes may be used in amounts from 0.01% to 1% by weight, cellulase enzymes may be used, etc. See paras. 76-120. Suitable nonionic surfactants include fatty alcohol alkoxylates, etc. See para. 20. The alkalinizing agents are preferably selected from (C 2 to C 6 )- alkanolamine, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate or mixtures thereof. See para. 118. Additionally, the compositions may contain additional ingredients such as builders/complexing agents, perfumes, dyes, hydrotropes, etc. See para. 136. Specifically, ‘591 teaches a liquid detergent composition containing 32.3% C13-C15 fatty alcohol with 7 moles of ethylene oxide, 13.78% glycerin, 0.5% hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (i.e., thickener), 13.85% citric acid, 1.2% protease, 0.4% amylase, 0.35% cellulase, 0.40% lipase, 0.40% mannanase, water, etc., wherein the composition has a pH of 5.1. See para. 165.
‘591 does not teach the specific amount of cellulase enzyme or a composition having a pH from 4 to 6, the composition containing a cellulase enzyme, an amylase enzyme, protease enzyme, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘537 teaches detergent compositions containing at least one detergent component selected from the group consisting of builders and surfactants, and pectinase enzyme. The compositions are suitable for cleaning laundry, dishwashing, etc. See page 1. Also, the composition may contain one or more additional enzymes. Suitable additional enzymes include cellulases which may be used in amounts from 0.0001% to 2% by weight based on the detergent composition, etc. See pages 12 and 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a cellulase enzyme in an amount, for example, of 0.05% by weight in the composition taught by ‘591, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘537 teaches the use of a cellulase enzyme in an amount, for example, of 0.05% by weight in a similar composition and further, ‘591 teaches the use of cellulase enzymes in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition having a pH from 4 to 6, the composition containing a cellulase enzyme, an amylase enzyme, protease enzyme, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘591 in view of ‘537 suggest a composition having a pH from 4 to 6, the composition containing a cellulase enzyme, an amylase enzyme, protease enzyme, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 102 using DE102015215591, Applicant states that the instant claims now recite “at least one cellulase present in an amount of between 0.001 wt. % and 0.25 wt. % of active cellulase, based on the total weight of the composition”, wherein this amount of cellulase is not taught or suggested by ‘591. Additionally, Applicant states that ‘591 teaches the use of 0.35% by weight of cellulase enzymes in each of the examples.
In response, note that, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made, as set forth above, which was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. The Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of DE102015215591 in view of CN1144537 suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
The Examiner asserts that ‘537 is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘591 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘537 to cure the deficiencies of ‘591. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a cellulase enzyme in an amount, for example, of 0.05% by weight in the composition taught by ‘591, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘537 teaches the use of a cellulase enzyme in an amount, for example, of 0.05% by weight in a similar composition and further, ‘591 teaches the use of cellulase enzymes in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘591 in view of ’537 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights