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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, it is believed “comprises and alcohol ethoxylated” should read “comprises an alcohol ethoxylate”.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the aqueous liquor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret the claim as reciting wherein the rinse liquor comprises from about 1x102 to about 1x108 CFU/l of the rinse liquor of bacterial spores. (Note: this limitation also appears in claim 7.).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein fully formulated detergent is in liquid, solid or unit-dose from” renders the claim indefinite because claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, does not recite a fully formulated detergent. Therefore, it is unclear how dependent claim 11 further limits the subject matter of claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandzia et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0078040) in view of Kellar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0220307).
Regarding claim 1, Kandzia et al. discloses a method of treating a fabric (Abstract, para. 12; Example 4, para. 123), the method comprising the step of:
subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor comprising a commercially available washing agent (Spee ® Universal Gel, see Table 4, which is understood to comprise a surfactant system) (para. 123); and
rinsing the fabric with a rinse liquor comprising bacterial spores (para. 9, 34, 123, Table 4).
Kandzia et al. is silent as to wherein the wash liquor comprises from about 100 ppm to about 600 ppm of a surfactant system and wherein the rinse liquor comprises from about 1x102 to about 1x108 CFU/l of the bacterial spores.
As to the limitation regarding the concentration of bacterial spores, Kandzia et al. discloses that the rinse liquor is formed by adding a hygienic rinser to a rinse cycle in a washing machine (para. 9, 34, 123) wherein the hygienic rinser comprises about 1x101 to 1x109 CFU/g (para. 9), and therefore the skilled artisan would be apprised of general conditions for the concentration of the bacterial spores in the ultimate rinse liquor. Kandzia et al. further discloses that the bacterial spores should be present in an effective amount to inhibit malodor on the fabric treated (para. 32). Therefore, Kandzia et al. discloses general conditions for the concentration of bacterial spores in the ultimate rinse liquor and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the parameter as a result-effective variable. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the concentration of bacterial spores in the rinse liquor used in the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. through routine experimentation.
As to the limitation regarding the concentration of the surfactant system in the wash liquor, Kellar et al. discloses a method of treating a fabric (para. 25-26) comprising subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor (para. 25-26) comprising a cleaning composition comprising a surfactant system (para. 30-37). Although Kellar et al. does not expressly teach a concentration in ppm of the surfactant system in the wash liquor, Kellar et al. does disclose wherein the cleaning composition comprises 0.1-20% w/w of the surfactant system (para. 37), and therefore the skilled artisan would be apprised of general conditions for the concentration of the surfactant system in ppm in the ultimate wash liquor. Kellar et al. further discloses wherein the method comprises treating the fabric with bacterial spores to inhibit malodor (para. 1, 25-26). Kellar et al. discloses that the surfactant system provides a cleaning effect (para. 2) but notes that the composition should be carefully formulated to ensure that the surfactant system does not adversely impact spore stability (para. 4, 31). Therefore, Kellar et al. discloses general conditions for the concentration of the surfactant system in the ultimate wash liquor and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the parameter as a result-effective variable. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the concentration of the surfactant system in the wash liquor used in the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Kandzia et al. discloses subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor comprising a commercially available washing agent that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. does not expressly teach wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic and a nonionic surfactant.
However, Kellar et al. discloses a cleaning composition comprising a surfactant system to be used in a wash liquor for treating fabric, and configured to be used alongside bacterial spores, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Kellar et al. discloses wherein a surfactant system comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant) and alcohol ethoxylate (a nonionic surfactant) is particularly effective for achieving cleaning efficiency while not adversely impacting the stability of bacterial spores (para. 27-36; Example 4, para. 103-107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. such that the wash liquor comprises a surfactant system comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant) and alcohol ethoxylate (a nonionic surfactant), based on the teachings of Kellar et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a wash liquor comprising a surfactant system that is recognized in the art to be effective for cleaning while not adversely affecting stability of spores introduced subsequently to the wash cycle.
Regarding claim 3, Kandzia et al. discloses subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor comprising a commercially available washing agent that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. does not expressly teach wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic surfactant comprises a sulfonate and/or sulfate surfactant and the nonionic surfactant comprises and alcohol ethoxylated.
However, Kellar et al. discloses a cleaning composition comprising a surfactant system to be used in a wash liquor for treating fabric, and configured to be used alongside bacterial spores, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Kellar et al. discloses wherein a surfactant system comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant comprising a sulfate surfactant) and alcohol ethoxylate (a nonionic surfactant comprising an alcohol ethoxylate) is particularly effective for achieving cleaning efficiency while not adversely impacting the stability of bacterial spores (para. 27-36; Example 4, para. 103-107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. such that the wash liquor comprises a surfactant system comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant comprising a sulfate surfactant) and alcohol ethoxylate (a nonionic surfactant comprising an alcohol ethoxylate), based on the teachings of Kellar et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a wash liquor comprising a surfactant system that is recognized in the art to be effective for cleaning while not adversely affecting stability of spores introduced subsequently to the wash cycle.
Regarding claim 5, Kandzia et al. discloses subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor comprising a commercially available washing agent that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. does not expressly teach wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic to nonionic surfactant are in a weight ratio of from about 30:1 to about 1:2.
However, Kellar et al. discloses a cleaning composition comprising a surfactant system to be used in a wash liquor for treating fabric, and configured to be used alongside bacterial spores, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Kellar et al. discloses wherein a surfactant system comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant) and alcohol ethoxylate (a nonionic surfactant) is particularly effective for achieving cleaning efficiency while not adversely impacting the stability of bacterial spores (para. 27-36; Example 4, para. 103-107). Kellar et al. discloses wherein a weight ratio of the anionic to the nonionic surfactant is 1.75:0.25 (para. 103-105; Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. such that the wash liquor comprises a surfactant system comprising an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic to nonionic surfactant are in a weight ratio of 1.75:0.25 (falls within the claim range), based on the teachings of Kellar et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a wash liquor comprising a surfactant system that is recognized in the art to be effective for cleaning while not adversely affecting stability of spores introduced subsequently to the wash cycle.
Regarding claim 6, Kandzia et al. discloses subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor comprising a commercially available washing agent that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. does not expressly teach wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic to nonionic surfactant are in a weight ratio of from about 20:1 to about 2:3.
However, Kellar et al. discloses a cleaning composition comprising a surfactant system to be used in a wash liquor for treating fabric, and configured to be used alongside bacterial spores, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Kellar et al. discloses wherein a surfactant system comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant) and alcohol ethoxylate (a nonionic surfactant) is particularly effective for achieving cleaning efficiency while not adversely impacting the stability of bacterial spores (para. 27-36; Example 4, para. 103-107). Kellar et al. discloses wherein a weight ratio of the anionic to the nonionic surfactant is 1.75:0.25 (para. 103-105; Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. such that the wash liquor comprises a surfactant system comprising an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic to nonionic surfactant are in a weight ratio of 1.75:0.25 (falls within the claim range), based on the teachings of Kellar et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a wash liquor comprising a surfactant system that is recognized in the art to be effective for cleaning while not adversely affecting stability of spores introduced subsequently to the wash cycle.
Regarding claim 7, Kandzia et al. discloses wherein the rinse liquor comprises bacterial spores, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. is silent as to wherein the rinse liquor comprises from about 1x103 to about 1x107 CFU/l of bacterial spores.
Nonetheless, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). Kandzia et al. discloses general conditions of the claim and the skilled artisan would recognize the parameter as a result-effective variable, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the concentration of bacterial spores in the rinse liquor used in the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Kandzia et al. discloses wherein the bacterial spores comprise Bacillus spores (para. 7, 123-124; Table 4).
Regarding claim 9, Kandzia et al. discloses wherein the surfactant system is added to the wash liquor as part of a commercially available washing agent (reads on a fully formulated detergent) (para. 121, 123; Table 4), and of Kellar et al. teaches the particular concentration of the surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Therefore, the prior art combination arrives at the claimed subject matter of wherein the surfactant system is added to the wash liquor as part of a fully formulated detergent.
Regarding claim 10, Kandzia et al. discloses wherein the surfactant system is added to the wash liquor as part of a commercially available washing agent (reads on a fully formulated detergent) (para. 121, 123; Table 4), and of Kellar et al. teaches the particular concentration of the surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. does not expressly teach wherein the fully formulated detergent further comprises a cleaning adjunct.
However, Kandzia et al. further discloses that it was known in the art to provide a composition used for washing with a cleaning adjunct to improve cleaning properties (para. 52, 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fully formulated detergent taught by Kandzia et al. in view of Kellar et al. to comprise a cleaning adjunct, based on the teachings of Kandzia et al., in order to improve cleaning properties thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Kandzia et al. discloses wherein the surfactant system is added to the wash liquor as part of a commercially available washing agent (reads on a fully formulated detergent) (para. 121, 123; Table 4), and of Kellar et al. teaches the particular concentration of the surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. does not expressly teach wherein the fully formulated detergent is in liquid, solid, or unit-dose form.
However, Kandzia et al. further discloses that it was known in the art to provide a composition used for washing in liquid or solid form (para. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fully formulated detergent taught by Kandzia et al. in view of Kellar et al. to be in liquid or solid form, based on the teachings of Kandzia et al., in order to use a formulation recognized in the art to be suitable for washing purposes.
Regarding claim 13, Kandzia et al. is devoid of mention of using bleach (see Example 4, para. 123-125) and thus it is understood that the wash liquor is necessarily substantially free of bleach.
Regarding claim 14, Kandzia et al. is devoid of mention of using a fabric conditioning agent (see Example 4, para. 123-125) and thus it is understood that the rinse liquor is substantially free of fabric conditioning agent.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandzia et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0078040) in view of Kellar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0220307) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Weide et al. (EP 3647397 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kandzia et al. discloses subjecting the fabric to a wash liquor comprising a commercially available washing agent that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a surfactant system, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kandzia et al. is silent as to wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic surfactant comprises linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and alcohol ether sulfate.
Weide et al. discloses a method of laundering an item comprising subjecting the item to a wash liquor comprising a composition (para. 10) including a surfactant system comprising a combination of a nonionic surfactant (para. 228), linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (an anionic surfactant) and alcohol ether sulfate (an anionic surfactant) (para. 228), wherein the wash liquor also comprises probiotic spores (para. 228).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kandzia et al. such that the wash liquor comprises a surfactant system comprising an anionic and a nonionic surfactant and wherein the anionic surfactant comprises linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and alcohol ether sulfate, as Weide et al. discloses that it was known in the art to use such a surfactant system in a method of laundering an item which also includes subjecting the item to spores, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particular surfactant system recognized in the art to be compatible for use along with spores.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandzia et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0078040) in view of Kellar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0220307) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Cooke et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0354873).
Regarding claim 12, Kandzia et al. discloses wherein the method takes place in a washing machine (para. 121, 123), wherein the washing agent comprising the surfactant system is added during a wash cycle and a composition comprising the bacterial spores is added during a rinse cycle (para. 9, 34, 123, Table 4).
Kandzia et al. is silent as to the washing machine comprising an auto-dosing system, wherein the auto-dosing system comprises a plurality of reservoirs, one reservoir comprising one or more surfactants and at least another reservoir comprising the bacterial spores.
Cooke et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide a washing machine comprising an auto-dosing system (Abstract, para. 1-2, claim 16), wherein the auto-dosing system comprises a plurality of reservoirs (para. 170, claim 16), one reservoir comprising a surfactant (para. 171) and at least another reservoir comprising a different composition such as an enzyme (para. 172). The auto-dosing system advantageously allows different compositions to be added automatically during operation of the washing machine, thereby making the laundry process less labor intensive (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the washing machine disclosed by Kandzia et al. to comprise an auto-dosing system comprising a plurality of reservoirs for holding the respective cleaning agents used by the method of Kandzia et al., such as one reservoir for holding the cleaning agent comprising the surfactant system and another reservoir for holding the composition comprising the bacterial spores, based on the teachings of Cooke et al., in order to advantageously dose compositions automatically.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
P2 Probiotic Power (webpage titled “FAQ’s”) is directed to a laundry additive comprising spores, intended to be used in a washing machine’s fabric softener dispenser (thus the composition is intended to be used in the rinse cycle) alongside separate laundry detergent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights