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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on May 11th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 83-89 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on June 30th, 2025.
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 75-76, 78-81, and 90-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mussmann (US 20150017707 A1).
With regard to claim 75, Mussman discloses a liquid dishwashing detergent (see Abstract). Mussmann further discloses the liquid detergent comprising protease (see [0007]) and further teaches protease at 0.01-1wt% (see [0150]). Mussmann further teaches one or a plurality of surfactants (see [0199]), amine oxide as a suitable nonionic surfactant (see [0205]), and nonionic surfactants at 0.5-15wt% (see [0256]). Mussmann further discloses lipase at 0.0001-1wt% (see [0281]). Lastly, Mussmann discloses 3-3.5wt% of protease and 1.2wt% of amylase in the enzyme phase (see [0292]-[0299]). This totals a maximum of 5.7wt% of proteins in the additive phase. Mussman further discloses a liquid detergent composition comprising protease and amylase displays improved storage stability (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to produce a liquid dishwashing detergent comprising protease, anionic surfactants, and lipase for the purpose of producing a liquid dishwashing detergent with increased storage stability as Mussman discloses such detergents, comprising the disclosed weight percentage of enzymes, is advantageously storage-stable (see [0008]).
With regard to claim 76, Mussman discloses protease at 0.01-1wt% (see [0150]).
With regard to claims 78-80 and claim 90, Mussman discloses the dishwashing detergent is preferably dosed into the interior of a machine dishwasher during the running of a dishwashing program, prior to commencement of the main wash cycle or in the course of the main wash cycle (see [0286]).
With regard to claim 81, Mussman discloses one or a plurality of surfactants (see [0199]), amine oxide as a suitable nonionic surfactant (see [0205]), and nonionic surfactants at 0.5-15wt% (see [0256]).
With regard to claim 82, Mussman discloses the composition may further comprise mannanase (see Claim 8).
With regard to claim 91, Mussman discloses the composition may further comprise cellulase (see Claim 8).
With regard to claim 92, Mussman discloses dilution with water (see [0179]). This would result in water being the carrier of the overall diluted composition. Mussman further discloses water to 100wt% (see [0146]).
With regard to claim 93, Mussman discloses dye, perfume, and preservative at 0.25-0.5wt% (see [0146]).
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mussmann (US 20150017707 A1), as applied to claims 75-76, 78-81, and 90-93 above, and further in view of Scialla (US 20190010425 A1).
With regard to claim 77, Mussman discloses all of the limitations of claim 75.
However, Mussman fails to disclose a water hardness increasing compound.
Scialla discloses dishwashing compositions, an analogous art (see [0021]). Scialla further discloses the composition may comprise amine oxide surfactants (see [0108]) and enzymes (see [0112]-[0113]). Scialla further discloses the enzymes may be proteases, lipases, cellulases, and amylases (see [0012]-[0013]). Scialla further discloses the composition may comprise an enzyme stabilizing system at 0.001-10wt% (see [0114]-[0115]). Scialla further teaches the enzyme stabilizing system may be calcium formate (see [0115]). The instant specifications disclose any salt of calcium as a suitable water hardness increasing compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the calcium formate of Scialla in the composition of Mussman for the purpose of stabilizing enzymes, as disclosed by Scialla.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights