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 June 15, 2026.
Claims 1, 7 and 10-20 are pending. Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are cancelled. Claims 1, 7 and 10-20 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzales et al. (US 2019/0284509), hereinafter “Gonzales,” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hellmuth et al. (WO 2016/083127), hereinafter “Hellmuth” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 2, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzales as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Marsh et al. (US Pat. No. 4,076,800) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzales as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Ofosu-Asante et al. (US Pat. No. 6,521,577) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzales as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellmuth as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 10-17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Gonzales is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 7, 11-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randall et al. (US Patent No. 6,407,053), hereinafter “Randall.”
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11-17 and 19, Randall teaches a heavy duty liquid detergent composition, i.e., laundry liquid detergent composition, in Example VII, which comprises 19 wt% C12-15 alkyl ether (2.5) sulfate (an anionic surfactant), 2 wt% C12-13 alkyl ethoxylate (9.0) (a nonionic surfactant), 3.5 wt% C12-14 glucose amide (also a nonionic surfactant), 3 wt% citric acid, 2 wt% C12-14 fatty acid, 2.5 wt% borax (also known as sodium tetraborate), 2.00 wt% polylysine (see Table XI), MEA (monoethanolamine, a base) to pH 8, and balance: enzymes, preservatives, water, among others (see Table VII), wherein the preferred enzymes for laundry purposes include proteases, cellulases, lipases and/or amylases (see col. 12, lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 20, even though Randall does not explicitly disclose that the detergent composition scavenges chlorine to a concentration of 0 ppm in less than about 60 sec after contact with a 1 L water sample comprising up to 4 ppm chlorine, it would be inherent for the heavy duty liquid detergent composition above to exhibit the same property because the same ingredients having the same pH have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Randall teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Randal anticipates the claims.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall as applied to claims 1, 7, 11-17, 19 and 20 above.
Regarding claim 18, Randall teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Randall teaches, in Example VII, a laundry liquid detergent composition which comprises enzymes like proteases and/or cellulases (see Table VII and col. 12, lines 20-22). In addition, Randall teaches that one suitable protease has a maximum activity throughout the pH range of 8-12 (see col. 12, lines 39-43) and the cellulases have a pH optimum between 5 and 10. Randall, however, fails to specifically disclose the laundry composition having a pH of 10 to 11.5.
Considering that Randall teaches that the protease has a maximum activity throughout the pH range of 8-12, the cellulases have a pH optimum between 5 and 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the laundry liquid detergent composition within the pH range of the protease and/or cellulase enzyme, i.e., pH between 5 and 12. With regards to the specific range of the composition having a pH of 10 to 11.5, 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., pH 10-11.5) 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).
Claims 1, 10-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
Hellmuth et al. (WO 2016/083127, already of record), hereinafter “Hellmuth.” Please note that the English translation of this reference will be used for citation purposes.
Regarding claims 1, 10-17 and 19, Hellmuth teaches the use of whey protein isolate in enzyme-containing detergents (see abstract), like laundry detergent (see page 7, 6th full paragraph). In Example 1, Hellmuth teaches a detergent composition which comprises 5.5 wt% 7-ethoxylated C12/14 fatty alcohol (nonionic surfactant), 5.3 wt% sodium C9-13 alkylbenzene sulfonate (an anionic surfactant), water, 4.9 wt% sodium C12/14 fatty alcohol ether sulfate with 2EO (also an anionic surfactant), 1.3 wt% NaOH (i.e., base, which is a Group I hydroxide), 1.4 wt% GermanProt (a whey protein isolate; i.e., protein other than a laundry enzyme), 1 wt% protease (i.e., laundry enzyme), 1.8 wt% citric acid (an acid), 0.1 wt% diethylenetriaminepenta-(methylenephosphonic) hepta sodium salt (a chelating agent), among others, wherein the composition has a pH of 8.5 (see page 17, lower half portion). Hellmuth, however, fails to disclose the detergent composition having a pH of 7 to 8 as recited in claim 1.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (i.e., pH 8 vs pH 8.5) 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 20, even though Hellmuth does not explicitly disclose that the detergent composition scavenges chlorine to a concentration of 0 ppm in less than about 60 sec after contact with a 1 L water sample comprising up to 4 ppm chlorine, 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 detergent composition of Hellmuth to exhibit a similar property because the same ingredients with close enough pH have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellmuth as applied to claims 1, 10-17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Bettiol et al. (US 2019/0144788) hereinafter “Bettiol.”
Regarding claim 18, Hellmuth teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Hellmuth teaches that the composition in Example 1 has a pH of 8.5 (see page 17, lower half portion). In addition, Hellmuth teaches that in order to establish a desired pH, the compositions may contain a system and environmentally acceptable acids like citric acid, or bases, like alkali metal hydroxides (see page 12, 2nd from last paragraph). Hellmuth, however, fails to disclose the composition having a pH of 10 to 11.5.
Bettiol, an analogous art, teaches a detergent composition, which includes laundry detergent composition, comprising modified soy protein like soy protein isolate (see abstract, [0019] and Table 3), wherein the pH of the composition, measured as a 10% product concentration in demineralized water at 20° C., is adjusted to between 3 and 14, more preferably between 6 and 12 (see [0031]; see also [0084] and claim 12).
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 pH of the composition of Hellmuth within those recited because it is known from Bettiol that a similar composition has a pH between 3 and 14, more preferably between 6 and 12. With respect to the specific pH, 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., pH of 10 to 11.5) 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Hellmuth, as it applies to the present claims, Applicant argues that Hellmuth does not disclose a composition having a pH of 7-8 or 10-11 as recited in amended claim 1.
As stated above, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (i.e., pH 8 vs pH 8.5) 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.
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