DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 09/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are under consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd Paragraph
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 2, 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims recite “preferably” which renders the claims vague and indefinite since it is unclear if the claims are limited to the subject matter recited after “preferably”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are drawn to a broad and widely varying genus of detergent compositions comprising (a) from about 0.00005 to about 5 wt% genus of alginate lyase enzymes (active enzyme protein) and (b) Bacillus sporesis where the alginate lyase enzymes is of any amino acid sequence and structure. According to MPEP 2163:
“For each claim drawn to a genus: The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)…”
According to MPEP 2163.02:
“The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon "reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter." Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).”
The specification as originally filed does not disclose a representative number of species encompassed by the claimed genus by actual reduction to practice. The specification as originally filed does not provide a correlation between function and structure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to predict which amino acid sequences and structures correlate with alginate lyase enzymatic activity.
Hence, the specification does not provide sufficient written description to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that applicants were in possession at the time the application was filed of the claimed broad and widely varying genus of detergent compositions comprising (a) from about 0.00005 to about 5 wt% genus of alginate lyase enzymes (active enzyme protein) and (b) Bacillus sporesis where the alginate lyase enzymes is of any amino acid sequence and structure.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20210009922 (2021-01-14; PTO 892)
US20210009922 teaches a method of treating a fabric comprising contacting a fabric with an aqueous wash liquor comprising an alginate lyase enzyme and Bacillus spores. US20210009922 teaches a method of reducing odor from textiles which comprises applying a solution comprising one or more laundry-suitable enzymes, and bacterial spores selected for the
ability to assist in cleaning of textiles to the fabric. The bio-enzymatic mixture ready for application to clothing comprises between 1x105 and 5x101° CFU/ml Bacillus spores, such as Bacillus subtilis and a mix of at least three laundry enzymes collectively having a total enzyme concentration from 1 % to 20%. The enzyme may be selected to be an alginate lyase (see paragraphs [0044],] [0128], and [0129]). See entire publication especially paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0030], [0031], [0037] - [0039], [0041], [0051] - [0053], [0100] - [0102], [0109], [0128],
[0129]; paragraphs [0137] - [0141], [0173]; claims 1-21; and Figure 6. US20210009922 teaches the following in the claims:
19. A composition for reducing persistent odor in a textile garment worn on the body of a user, comprising an aqueous solution of 0.01 to 30% N-acetyl cysteine, at least one surfactant, and at least one enzyme selected from proteases, pectinases, cellulases, amylases, lipases, mannanases, and lysozymes; the composition being associated with indicia instructing a user to apply the composition to a textile garment having persistent odor.
20. The composition of claim 19, wherein the aqueous solution comprises from 0.2 to 5% N-acetyl cysteine and from 0.1% to 5% protease.
21. A two-part composition for reducing odor in a textile garment worn on the body of a user, comprising a first part comprising N-acetyl-cysteine or salt thereof and a second part comprising a cleaning compound selected from one or more of the following: at least 1% of one or more enzymes selected from proteinases, cellulases, amylsases, lipases, pectinases mannanases, and lysozymes, at least 0.01% of bacterial spores capable of producing at least one of proteinases, cellulases, amylsases, lipases, mannanases, and lysozymes in the presence of suitable nutrients, and at least 4% of one or more surfactants, the two parts of the composition being physically separated from each other prior to use and associated with indicia instructing the user to apply both parts of the two-part composition to a region of the textile garment suffering from malodor prior to washing the garment.
22. The two-part composition of claim 21, wherein the indicia specify a recommended dwell time following treatment of the garment with at least one part of the two-part composition, the recommended dwell time ranging from 1 to 60 minutes.
Thus, the reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210009922 (2021-01-14; PTO 892) in view of Accession G9CHX6 (22-FEB-2012; PTO 892), Accession G0LAE1 (19-OCT-2011; PTO 892), Accession BAM84739 (30-JAN-2014; PTO 892), Accession Q59478 (15-DEC-1998; PTO 892), Accession BHN69381(28-MAY-2020; PTO 892), Accession A0A1I1X5M9 (22-NOV-2017; PTO 892), Accession A0A1I1X0M1 (22-NOV-2017; PTO 892).
US20210009922 teaches a method of treating a fabric comprising contacting a fabric with an aqueous wash liquor comprising an alginate lyase enzyme and Bacillus spores. US20210009922 teaches a method of reducing odor from textiles which comprises applying a solution comprising one or more laundry-suitable enzymes, and bacterial spores selected for the
ability to assist in cleaning of textiles to the fabric. The bio-enzymatic mixture ready for application to clothing comprises between 1x105 and 5x101° CFU/ml Bacillus spores, such as Bacillus subtilis and a mix of at least three laundry enzymes collectively having a total enzyme concentration from 1 % to 20%. The enzyme may be selected to be an alginate lyase (see paragraphs [0044],] [0128], and [0129]). See entire publication especially paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0030], [0031], [0037] - [0039], [0041], [0051] - [0053], [0100] - [0102], [0109], [0128],
[0129]; paragraphs [0137] - [0141], [0173]; claims 1-21; and Figure 6. US20210009922 teaches the following in the claims:
19. A composition for reducing persistent odor in a textile garment worn on the body of a user, comprising an aqueous solution of 0.01 to 30% N-acetyl cysteine, at least one surfactant, and at least one enzyme selected from proteases, pectinases, cellulases, amylases, lipases, mannanases, and lysozymes; the composition being associated with indicia instructing a user to apply the composition to a textile garment having persistent odor.
20. The composition of claim 19, wherein the aqueous solution comprises from 0.2 to 5% N-acetyl cysteine and from 0.1% to 5% protease.
21. A two-part composition for reducing odor in a textile garment worn on the body of a user, comprising a first part comprising N-acetyl-cysteine or salt thereof and a second part comprising a cleaning compound selected from one or more of the following: at least 1% of one or more enzymes selected from proteinases, cellulases, amylsases, lipases, pectinases mannanases, and lysozymes, at least 0.01% of bacterial spores capable of producing at least one of proteinases, cellulases, amylsases, lipases, mannanases, and lysozymes in the presence of suitable nutrients, and at least 4% of one or more surfactants, the two parts of the composition being physically separated from each other prior to use and associated with indicia instructing the user to apply both parts of the two-part composition to a region of the textile garment suffering from malodor prior to washing the garment.
22. The two-part composition of claim 21, wherein the indicia specify a recommended dwell time following treatment of the garment with at least one part of the two-part composition, the recommended dwell time ranging from 1 to 60 minutes.
Accession G9CHX6 teaches Flavobacterium sp. S20 alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1(see attached alignment).
Accession G0LAE1 teaches alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 2 (see attached alignment).
Accession BAM84739 teaches alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 (see attached alignment).
Accession Q59478 teaches alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 4 (see attached alignment).
Accession BHN69381 teaches alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 5 (see attached alignment).
Accession A0A1I1X5M9 teaches alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 94.3% identical to SEQ ID NO: 6 (see attached alignment).
Accession A0A1I1X0M1 teaches alginate lyase having an amino acid sequence that is 97.5% identical to SEQ ID NO: 7 (see attached alignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and/or combine the reference teachings to make the claimed invention by modifying the composition of US20210009922 to comprise any of the alginate lyase taught by of Accession G9CHX6, Accession G0LAE1, Accession BAM84739, Accession Q59478, Accession BHN69381, Accession A0A1I1X5M9, Accession A0A1I1X0M1 at the recited amounts stated in the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a composition that can be used treating a fabric and reducing odor from textiles as taught by US20210009922. It would have been obvious to add all of the recited products and components at all of the recited amounts and concentrations as routine optimization and/or desired for treating fabrics and reducing order from textiles. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success because making compositions for treating fabrics comprising enzymes are known in the art as shown by the reference teachings. Hence, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Application Serial No. 18297302; claims 1-17, 19-21 of Application Serial No. 18301463; claims 1, 3, 4, 8-19, 21 of Application Serial No. 18301487; claims 1-14 of Application Serial No. 18932665; claims 1-10 of Application Serial No. 18932669. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
The claims and/or specification of the copending applications teach the claimed detergent composition comprising (a) from about 0.00005 to about 5 wt% alginate lyase enzyme (active enzyme protein) and (b) Bacillus spores. Thus, the teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christian L Fronda whose telephone number is (571)272 0929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternate Fridays between 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 on (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.
/CHRISTIAN L FRONDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights