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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, the term “polyethylenimine” should read “polyethyleneimine”. 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the transitional word “or”, “and” or “and/or” appears to be missing between groups (ii) and (iii).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Rose (WO 2017036917).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, De Rose discloses a detergent composition comprising a surfactant or surfactant system. See pages 12-16. The detergent composition additionally includes a lipase. See pages 4-6. Page 22 further indicates that the detergent composition includes an alkoxylated polyethyleneimine (“polyethyleneimine, ethoxylated”). Page 13 further states that a biosurfactant, such as a rhamnolipid, is provided.
With respect to claim 3, De Rose discloses the detergent composition as described above. Because De Rose teaches the detergent composition of claim 1, it is understood that it displays the claimed washing efficacy – i.e., improved fat removal under wash compared to when no booster is present.
With respect to claim 4, De Rose discloses the detergent composition as described above. De Rose states on page 2 that the lipase has at least 90 percent sequence identity with the wild type lipase derived from Humicola lanuginosa strain DSM 4109. Paragraph [0036] of Applicant’s printed publication identifies this lipase as SEQ ID NO: 1.
With respect to claim 5, De Rose discloses the detergent composition as described above. De Rose further states on page 6 that the composition includes other enzymes, such as a protease, cellulase, pectate lyase and mannanase.
With respect to claim 6, De Rose discloses a corresponding method for washing and cleaning laundry using the detergent composition (“The liquid detergency composition according to the invention preferably comprises surfactant and more preferably comprises detersive surfactant. By detersive surfactant is meant that the surfactant provides a detersive (i.e. cleaning effect) to textile fabrics treated as part of a cleaning, preferably a laundering, process”; “Preferably the liquid detergency composition according to the invention is a liquid laundry composition”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose (WO 2017036917) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nakanishi (US 20160355761) and/or Christensen (US 20020082183).
De Rose discloses the detergent composition as described above. De Rose further states that the composition includes a lipase and an alkoxylated polyethyleneimine, such as ethoxylated polyethyleneimine. See, for example, the compositions listed in the Table on pages 21 and 22. De Rose, however, does not appear to teach that the composition includes guanidine hydrochloride.
Nakanishi discloses a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising a surfactant and a bacteria-eliminating active agent. Nakanishi indicates in paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0047] and [0048] and Examples 2-4 that the bacteria-eliminating active agent may be guanidine hydrochloride.
Christensen discloses a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising a surfactant and one or more enzymes, such as a lipase. See paragraph [0052]. Paragraph [0060] indicates that the detergent composition may include a variety of adjunct ingredients, such as guanidine hydrochloride.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include guanidine hydrochloride as a booster in the De Rose laundry composition. Nakanishi and Christensen indicate guanidine hydrochloride is an adjunct ingredient suitable for inclusion in a detergent. Nakanishi further states that guanidine hydrochloride provides a beneficial antimicrobial effect. Because the De Rose laundry detergent is used to clean clothes, those of ordinary skill would have naturally been interested boosters that function as a bacteria-eliminating active agent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights