DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 10/14/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP21202640.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Duplicative Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 2 and 13 are verbally identical except for recitation of “the lipase enzyme is selected from” in claim 2 and “the lipase enzyme is a variant” in claim 13. However, such verbal difference does not provide for any difference in scope wherein the same lipase variant is recited.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “selected from” in line 2 should be removed since only one lipase variant is recited such that there is no selection from a group.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 (all pending claims) 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Particularly in claim 1, it is unclear if the range from 5 to 50 and 7 to 46 recited after preferably and “fluoride, chloride, bromide, . . .” is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the scope of “surfactant based on renewable raw material” is unclear. It is understood that certain surfactants are recognizable as being from a renewable material, such as fatty acid salts or surfactants isolated from living systems, such as sophorolipids. However, surfactants having the structure of Formula (a) or (b) (see claims 7 and 8) are not of a nature as clearly recognizable as produced from a renewable material (i.e. are understood to be man-made) and the scope of surfactants within the scope of claim 6 are not limited to Formula (a) or (b). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing is unable to understand how to avoid infringement of claim 6 regarding making the following differentiation:
Man-made surfactants that are based on renewable raw material; and
Man-made surfactants that are not based on renewable raw material as to avoid infringement of claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirrung et al. (U.S. 2017/0174803 A1) further in view of Vind et al. (U.S. 6,939,702 B1) and Bianchetti et al. (U.S. 2020/0308507 A1).
Pirrung, abstract, states:
The present invention relates to random copolymers obtainable by polymerization, the use of said random copolymers as soil release agents in laundry processes. Further aspects of the invention are a method for easier releasing soil from textiles in laundry processes and detergents containing said random copolymers.
Pirrung, in the claims teach:
7. A random copolymer obtainable by polymerization of
(i) at least one monomer according to formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
222
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 1 to 70 mol %,
wherein n is ≧3
and
(ii) at least one monomer according to formula (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
229
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 30 to 99 mol %.
8. The random copolymer according to claim 7, wherein n of the monomer according to formula (I) is between 5 and 50.
13. A detergent comprising the random copolymer as defined in claim 7.
The detergent composition of claim 13 of Pirrung is a fabric and home care product comprising a cationic soil release polymer obtainable by radical co-polymerization of a monomer of recited formula (I) with at least one monomer of recited formula (II) with A- being a chloride anion. Throughout this Office Action, reference to a detergent or detergent composition is a reference to a composition that is a fabric and home care product. “It is also possible to employ a random copolymer according to the invention in combination with a conventional soil-release polymer obtainable from dicarboxylic acid and optionally polymeric diol, in order to further enhance the cleaning power of laundry detergents when washing fabrics.” Pirrung, para. [0076]. Pirrung, para. [0018], discuss radical polymerization initiators such that it is clear that the polymer is produced in Example 1 of Pirrung is by radical polymerization. Claim 8 of Pirrung makes note that n of formula (I) can be from 5 to 50. Any polymer containing a monomer of recited formula (II) is necessarily cationic.
However, Pirrung does not teach the fabric and home care product further comprising a lipase enzyme with at least 90% identity to recited SEQ ID NO: 1 with the substitutions recited in claims 1, 2, 3, 13 and 14.
“Furthermore, the detergent may optionally also comprise enzymes. Enzymes can be added for the purpose of stain removal. The enzymes usually improve the action on stains caused by protein or starch, such as, for example, blood, milk, grass or fruit juices. Preferred enzymes are cellulases and proteases, especially proteases. Cellulases are enzymes that react with cellulose and its derivatives and hydrolyse them to form glucose, cellobiose and cellooligosaccharides. Cellulases remove dirt and, in addition, have the effect of enhancing the soft handle of the fabric. Examples of customary enzymes include, but are by no means limited to, the following: . . . lipases.” Pirrung, paras. [0063]-[0064]. Pirrung, para. [0072], teaches that a lipase marketed as Lipolase® is also suitable for use.
As such, Pirrung openly teaches that the detergents (i.e. fabric and home care product) taught therein can contain any number of enzymes well-known and established in the prior art for including in laundry detergent compositions including lipases. As such, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include any suitable enzyme known to be employed in detergent compositions including lipases and lipases related to Lipolase®.
Vind teaches: For a number of years, lipases have been used as detergent enzymes to remove lipid or fatty stains from clothes and other textiles, particularly a lipase derived from Humicola lanuginosa . . . sold under the tradename Lipolase® (product of Novo Nordisk A/S). . . . The inventors have found that certain variants of Lipolase (wild-type Humicola lanuginosa lipase) have a particularly good first-wash performance in a detergent solution. Vind, col. 1, ln. 21-43.
The wild-type Humicola lanuginosa lipase is SEQ ID NO: 1 of Vind that is identical to recited SEQ ID NO: 1. Vind further teaches that several substitutions can increase wash performance of lipases including N233R. Vind, col. 2, ln. 33.
Bianchetti further teach fabric/laundry cleaning compositions that can contain lipases. From Bianchetti, paras. [0068]-[0075]:
A suitable lipase is a variant of SEQ ID NO:5 comprising:
(a) substitution T231R
and
(b) substitution N233R or N233C
and
(c) at least three further substitutions selected from E1C, D27R, N33Q, G38A, F51V, G91Q, D96E, K98L, K98I, D111A, G163K, H198S, E210Q, Y220F, D254S, I255A, and P256T;
the positions correspond to the positions of SEQ ID NO:5 and wherein the lipase variant has at least 90% but less than 100% sequence identity to the polypeptide having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 5 and wherein the variant has lipase activity.
One preferred lipase is a variant of SEQ ID NO: 5 comprising the following substitutions: T231R, N233R, D27R, G38A, D96E, D111A, G163K, D254S and P256T.
One preferred lipase is a variant of SEQ ID NO: 5 comprising the following substitutions: T231R, N233R, N33Q, G91Q, E210Q, I255A.
SEQ ID NO: 5 of Bianchetti is identical to recited SEQ ID NO: 1 and to SEQ ID NO: 1 of Vind, which is marketed as Lipolase® as taught by Vind.
Pirrung does not teach the fabric and home care product further comprising a lipase enzyme with at least 90% identity to recited SEQ ID NO: 1 with the substitutions recited in claims 1, 2, 3, 13 and 14.
However, Pirrung directly teaches that it is appropriate to include a lipase in the detergent compositions taught therein including lipase marketed by Lipolase®, which is the lipase having recited SEQ ID NO: 1. Further, Vind teaches that lipases having recited SEQ ID NO: 1 with certain substitutions, including N233R, have improved wash performance. Bianchetti teach further modified versions of recited SEQ ID NO: 1 (SEQ ID NO: 5 of Bianchetti) with further substitutions, which are understood as introducing properties with suitability for inclusion in a detergent composition including protease with SEQ ID NO: 1 with substitutions T231R, N233R, D27R, G38A, D96E, D111A, G163K, D254S and P256T as recited in claims 2 and 13 and protease with SEQ ID NO: 1 withT231R, N233R, N33Q, G91Q, E210Q, I255A as recited in claim 3, the same protease variant having greater than 90% but less than 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
As such, since Pirrung directly teaches inclusion of a lipase being Lipolase® in the detergent compositions taught therein, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motived to including such Lipolase® (recited SEQ ID NO: 1), since Pirrung directly states to do the same. Further, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include any variant form of recited SEQ ID NO: 1 with substitutions taught to be appropriate for detergent compositions and improving the properties of such lipase within laundry detergent (fabric care) compositions as lipases that are highly related to Lipolase®, including SEQ ID NO: 1 with T231R, N233R, D27R, G38A, D96E, D111A, G163K, D254S and P256T substitutions as recited in claims 2 and 13, and SEQ ID NO: 1 with T231R, N233R, N33Q, G91Q, E210Q, I255A substitutions as recited in claim 3, and as taught by Bianchetti.
Regarding claim 14, Bianchetti further teaches that a lipase of recited SEQ ID NO: 1 can further beneficially contain at least three further substitutions selected from E1C, D27R, N33Q, G38A, F51V, G91Q, D96E, K98L, K98I, D111A, G163K, H198S, E210Q, Y220F, D254S, I255A, and P256T. At the time filing, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include all of these substitutions since “at least three” is an indication that all can be included to form a lipase with a reasonable expectation of being suitable for inclusion in a detergent composition as taught by Pirrung or otherwise. Further, such substitutions are to be in combination with T231R and N233R/C. The N233R substitution appears to be taught as the preferred substitution over N233C being taught in for example, the combination T231R, N233R, D27R, G38A, D96E, D111A, G163K, D254S and P256T, as discussed above. As such, the combination of all of substitutions E1C, D27R, N33Q, G38A, F51V, G91Q, D96E, K98L/I, D111A, G163K, H198S, E210Q, Y220F, D254S, I255A, and P256T plus T231R and N233R made to the lipase of recited SEQ ID NO: 1 is suggested by Bianchetti. An ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to include an lipase variant suggested by Bianchetti since the same are variant forms of recited SEQ ID NO: 1 with substitutions taught to be appropriate for detergent compositions and improving the properties of such lipase within laundry detergent (fabric care) compositions as lipases that are highly related to Lipolase®, as discussed above.
All discussed protease variants taught by Bianchetti have greater than 90% but less than 100% identity to recited SEQ ID NO: 1.
Regarding claim 4, since Pirrung does not teach the necessity of including any monomers other than those of formula (I) and (II) including in the working example 1 of Pirrung, Pirrung is understood as teaching a cationic polymer meeting the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Pirrung, paras. [0031]-[0032], teach that the compositions taught therein can advantageously include at least one surfactant including fatty acid salts, which are natural compounds are understood to be a “surfactant based on renewable raw material.”
Regarding claims 11 and 12, as discussed, Pirrung, paras. [0063]-[0064], teach that detergent compositions consistent with the teachings therein can contain enzymes including proteases and/or amylases. More specifically, Table 2 of Pirrung provides an example detergent composition containing both protease and amylase. As such, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include in addition to a lipase as discussed one or more of a protease and an amylase.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirrung et al. (U.S. 2017/0174803 A1) and Bianchetti et al. (U.S. 2020/0308507 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Kropf et al. (U.S. 2019/0169531 A1) (see IDS) and Kropf et al. (U.S. 2019/0169543 A1) (Kroph 2d) (see IDS).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as discussed, Pirrung teaches that it is appropriate to include a surfactant within the detergent compositions taught therein. “The detergent will normally include at least one surfactant which may be anionic, cationic, nonionic or amphoteric. The anionic surfactant can be, for example, a sulfate, sulfonate or carboxylate surfactant or a mixture thereof. Preference is given to alkylbenzenesulfonates, alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, olefin sulfonates, fatty acid salts, alkyl and alkenyl ether carboxylates or to an a-sulfonic fatty acid salt or an ester thereof.” Pirrung, paras. [0031]-[0032].
Kroph, para. [0001], teaches anionic surfactants which can be prepared on the basis of renewable raw materials and which have low critical micelle concentrations (CMC) and produce low interfacial tensions. “Particularly good results are achieved in the use of said surfactants in washing and cleaning agents, such that further subject matter of the present invention includes the use of anionic surfactant of general formula (I) for the preparation of washing or cleaning agents, the use of an anionic surfactant of general formula (I) for improving the performance of washing or cleaning agents in washing laundry or cleaning hard surfaces, and washing or cleaning agents containing a surfactant of general formula (I).” Kroph, para. [0011].
Formula (I) of Kroph (para. [0004]) is as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
559
861
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula (I) of Kroph wherein n and m are from 5-14 (e.g. n and m both being 5) meets the features of Formula (b) in claim 8. That is, the species or subgenus of surfactants taught by Kroph anticipates the genus of Formula (b) in claim 8.
Kroph 2d has similar teaching to Kroph. “[T]here is a constant desire to provide surfactants that have excellent properties in terms of application in order for it to be possible to achieve high performance even when a low amount of surfactant is used.” Kroph 2d, para. [0002].
PNG
media_image4.png
621
869
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wherein n is from 7-17 (e.g. n being 7), Formula (I) of Kroph 2d meets the features of Formula (a) in claim 7. The surfactants of general formula (I) can be obtained, as described, from renewable raw materials. Kroph 2d, para. [0007]. That is, the species or subgenus of surfactants of Kroph 2d anticipates Formula (a) in claim 7.
As discussed, Pirrung teaches that it is appropriate to include sulfate anionic detergents in the laundry detergent compositions therein. Kroph and Kroph 2d teach particularly desirable surfactants in so far as such surfactants are sulfate anionic surfactants and can be advantageously be made from renewable raw materials and otherwise have superior performance properties as highlighted above. As such, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a surfactant as taught by Kroph meeting the features of recited formula (b) or a surfactant as taught by Kroph 2d meeting the features of recited formula (a) as to advantageously provide a sulfate surfactant within the detergent compositions of Pirrung as to meet the features of claims 7 and 8.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirrung et al. (U.S. 2017/0174803 A1) and Bianchetti et al. (U.S. 2020/0308507 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Schulz et al. (WO 2018/028933 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed, Pirrung teaches a detergent composition containing a cationic soil release polymer with monomers of Formulae (I) and (II) as recited.
Schulz, abstract, states:
The present invention relates to a liquid detergent composition, in particular a heavy duty liquid detergent that is clear or translucent and aesthetically appealing and comprises surfactant, propylene glycol, and at least one soil release polymer, as defined herein. The invention further relates to methods for washing of textiles using the detergents of the invention as well as the respective use thereof.
Schulz, claim 1, similarly teaches a detergent composition with at least one soil release polymer wherein the polymer is:
PNG
media_image5.png
334
850
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
255
739
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Both of these formulae are consistent with corresponding formula taught by Pirrung and as recited in claim 1.
Schultz, pages 9-10, further teaches “a part of units stemming from monomers according to formula (II), preferably not more than 60 mol% referring to units from monomers according to formula (II), may be replaced by units stemming from the not quaternized monomer according to formula (Ila),
PNG
media_image7.png
220
642
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“It has been found that compositions that meet the above requirements with the amount and ratio of the ingredients used show excellent stability while being aesthetically pleasing in that they are transparent or translucent formulations with little to no precipitation and/or phase separation even over extended periods of storage under varying temperature conditions.” Schultz, page 10.
Schultz does not clearly enumerate a specific advantage to be obtain by replacing part of the monomers of formula II with those of formula (IIa), which is the same formula (IIa) recited in claim 5. Regardless, Schultz explicitly states that a part of the monomers of formula II can be replaced with formula (II) monomers while forming a suitable soil release polymer such that an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to do the same in view of the express instructions and teachings of Schultz to do so.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirrung et al. (U.S. 2017/0174803 A1) and Bianchetti et al. (U.S. 2020/0308507 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Souter et al. (U.S. 2009/0181874 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Pirrung does not appear to actively discuss inclusion of an additional soil release polymer, whether based on a polysaccharide or otherwise. However, Pirrung, para. [0086], does discuss inclusion of other disperant polymers based upon cellulose (a carbohydrate): Yet other dispersant polymers useful herein include the cellulose sulfate esters such as cellulose acetate sulfate, cellulose sulfate, hydroxyethyl cellulose sulfate, methylcellulose sulfate, and hydroxypropylcellulose sulfate.
Souter further relates to detergent composition that can contain soil release polymers. “The compositions of the present invention can also contain one or more polymers. These would include soil release polymers & soil suspension polymers.” Souter, para. [0102]. “In a further aspect the polymers would include cellulosic-based polymers such as amorphous cellulose and anionically and/or nonionically and/or cationically modified celluloses. Non-limiting examples of anionically suitable modified cellulose derivatives are the sodium or potassium salts of carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxyethyl cellulose, sulfoethyl cellulose, sulfopropyl cellulose, cellulose sulfate, phosphorylated cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl cellulose, sulfoethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, sulfoethyl hydroxypropyl cellulose, carboxymethyl methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl methyl cellulose, sulfoethyl methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, sulfoethyl methyl cellulose, carboxymethyl ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl ethyl cellulose, sulfoethyl ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, sulfoethyl ethyl cellulose.” Souter, para. [0105].
That is, Pirrung teach that in addition to the cationic soil release polymer as recited in claim 1, that an additional cellulose-based polymer can be present and provides cellulose sulfate as an example. Souter teaches that sulfoethyl cellulose is a modified cellulose that is also known to be advantageous included in detergent compositions as a soil release polymers & soil suspension polymer. Since Pirrung directly teach that it is advantageous to include a modified cellulose polymer in addition to the cationic soil release polymer as recited in claim 1, an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to include any modified cellulose polymer known in the prior art as suitable for inclusion in detergent compositions with a function as a soil release or a soil suspension polymer. A soil suspension polymer is understood as being the same as a dispersant polymer with an example of cellulose sulfate as taught by Pirrung and Souter. As such, in addition to cellulose sulfate as taught by Purring, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivate to utilize other cellulose-based polymers taught to have a soil release and/or suspension and/or dispersant properties within fabric detergent compositions consistent with the teachings of Pirrung including sulfoethyl cellulose as taught by Souter. An ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to do this since the specific dispersant polymers discussed by Pirrung are exemplary wherein multiple classes of polymers are discussed in Pirrung, paras. [0079]-[0088], such that an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have understood that other similar cellulose-based polymer known in the art, including those of Souter, can be employed with an expectation of achieving suitable performance as a dispersant polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M EPSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00a-5:30p.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at (408) 918-7584. 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.
/TODD M EPSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights