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 Group I, claims 1-11 and 16-20, in the reply filed on May 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on May 13, 2026.
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 8 and 20 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.
In claim 8, the phrase “the amount of protein” in line 2 lacks support with respect to claim 1 to which this claim is dependent upon.
In claim 20, the phrase “the fermentation liquid” in line 1 lacks support with respect to claim 1 to which this claim is dependent upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-4, 6-11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herdeman (US Patent No. 4,767,557; already cited in IDS dated 06/27/2024).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-10 and 19, Herdeman teaches, in Example 2, an enzyme granulate, i.e., a particle, of Example 1 which comprises 4 wt% proteolytic enzyme (a protein), 1 wt% amylase enzyme (also a protein), an alkaline buffer salt material which comprises 5 wt% Na2SO3 (sodium sulfite), 20 wt% cellulose filler (which can be degraded to a reducing sugar) and 5 wt% binder which comprises dextrin (which can also be degraded to a reducing sugar), wherein the above ingredients were mixed in a granulating device, hence, homogeneously mixed, and coated with a protective coating (see col. 7, lines 19-68; col. 5, line 52 to col. 6, line 53). It is noted that the protective coating does not contain titanium dioxide which meets “less than 0.5% w/w of titanium dioxide” as recited in claim 1, or “less than 0.1% w/w of titanium dioxide” as recited in claim 10 because “less than” includes 0 as the lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974.
Regarding claim 16, Herdeman also teaches, in Example IV, a detergent powder comprising sodium salt of straight chain C12 alkylbenzene sulfonate (a surfactant), sodium tripolyphosphate (a builder), enzyme granulates of Example I or II, among others (see col. 8, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 11, even though Herdeman does not explicitly disclose the enzyme granulate exhibiting a reduced loss of whiteness after storage, it would be inherent for the enzyme granulate of Herdeman to exhibit the same property because the same ingredients having the same proportions 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.
Hence, Herdeman anticipates the claims.
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 2, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdeman as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 16 and 19 above, and further in view of Borup et al. (US 2013/0040872), hereinafter “Borup.”
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 18, Herdeman teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Herdeman teaches in Example 2, an enzyme granulate which comprises 5 wt% binder which comprises dextrin (see col. 7, lines 19-68). Herdeman, however, fails to disclose mono- or disaccharide in an amount of more than 0.01% w/w as recited in claim 2, or more than 0.05% w/w as recited in claim 18; and the di-saccharide is sucrose as recited in claim 17.
Borup, an analogous art, teaches the equivalency of dextrin with sucrose as a carbohydrate binder in an amylase granulate, and is also used in an amount of 5 wt% (see Example 2 in [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the 5 wt% dextrin of Herdeman with 5 wt% sucrose because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by O’Connell is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one binder for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdeman as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 16 and 19 above.
Regarding claim 5, Herdeman teaches the features as discussed above. Herdeman, however, fails to disclose wherein the protein, i.e., enzymes, is produced by fermentation.
Please note that the above limitation is a product-by-process limitation, hence, any difference imparted by the product by process limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdeman as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 16 and 19 above, and further in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2014/0038878), hereinafter “O’Connell.”
Regarding claim 20, Herdeman teaches the features as discussed above. Herdeman, however, fails to disclose glucosidase.
O’Connell, an analogous art, teaches the equivalency of protease or amylase with β-glucosidase as enzymes in an enzyme granulate (see [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the protease or amylase of Herdeman with β-glucosidase because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by O’Connell is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one enzyme for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borup et al. (US 2013/0040872), hereinafter “Borup.”
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, and 17-19, Borup teaches, in Example 2, an amylase granulate which comprises a core which comprises 1-3% w/w Stainzyme enzyme (amylase enzyme, i.e., protein), 8% w/w cellulose fibers, 5% w/w carbohydrate binder, e.g., sucrose (a disaccharide), 1.5 wt% Na-thiosulfate, among others, and the core comprises 2 layers of coating, wherein the granules, i.e., core, are made by high shear granulation, hence, homogeneously mixed, and coated by fluid bed coating (see [0097]). It is noted that the core and the coating do not contain titanium dioxide which read on “less than 0.5% w/w of titanium dioxide” as recited in claim 1, or “less than 0.1% w/w of titanium dioxide” as recited in claim 10 because “less than” includes 0 as the lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974. Borup also teaches the equivalency of thiosulfates with sulfites, e.g. as salts of alkali metals, as reducing agent, peroxide decomposing catalyst and/or antioxidant (see [0038]), Borup, however, fails to specifically disclose an amylase granulate which comprises sodium sulfite, say in Example 2, as recited in claims 1, 3, 6, 9 and 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the Na-thiosulfate in Example 2 of Borup with sodium sulfite because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Borup in para. [0038] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one reducing agent, peroxide decomposing catalyst and/or antioxidant for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Borup teaches the features as discussed above. Herdeman, however, fails to disclose wherein the amylase enzyme is produced by fermentation.
Please note that the above limitation is a product-by-process limitation, hence, any difference imparted by the product by process limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Regarding claim 16, Borup further teaches a powder detergent composition comprising a surfactant, builder and the above amylase granulate (see claim 18, [0068], [0069] and [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, even though Borup does not explicitly disclose the amylase granulate exhibiting a reduced loss of whiteness after storage, 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 amylase granulate of Borup to exhibit similar properties because similar ingredients having the same proportions have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borup as applied to claims 1-11 and 16-19 above, and further in view of O’Connell.
Regarding claim 20, Borup teaches the features as discussed above. Borup, however, fails to disclose glucosidase.
O’Connell, an analogous art, teaches the equivalency of amylase with β-glucosidase as enzymes in an enzyme granulate (see [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the amylase of Borup with β-glucosidase because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by O’Connell is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one enzyme for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
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