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 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 2, 8, 12 and 16 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the Markush listing “chelating agent” for the amine source. This limitation renders the claims vague and indefinite, since a chelating agent does not need to contain an amine group. Claims 2 and 12 should be amended to recite “an amine containing chelating agent” for clarification purposes. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “a chelating agent in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 2.5% by weight”. This limitation renders the claims vague and indefinite, since the amine source of instant claims 2 and 12 may contain a chelating agent. It is unclear if claims 8 and 16 are requiring an additional/different chelating agent in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 2.5% by weight than the chelating agent listed in claims 2 and 12. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
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 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Serrasqueiro et al, WO 2021/073901.
Serrasqueiro et al, WO 2021/073901, discloses a machine dishwashing detergent comprising a carbohydrate oxidizing enzyme and a surfactant system (see abstract and page 1, lines 3-8). It is further taught by Serrasqueiro et al that the dishwashing detergent contains 0.002-0.5% by weight of an active carbohydrate oxidase enzyme, such as hexose oxidase, 1-40% by weight of a carbohydrate oxidase enzyme substrate, and a surfactant system comprising a nonionic surfactant, wherein the pH of a 1% by weight solution (i.e., contains water in an amount of up to 99% by weight) is 8.5-11.5 (see page 2, lines 1-11), that the carbohydrate oxidase enzyme substrate is glucose (i.e., a reducing sugar; see page 5, lines 14-24), that suitable nonionic surfactants include C10-20 fatty acids, ethoxylated alcohols, and alkoxylated amines (i.e., an amine source) in an amount of 0.1-15% by weight (see page 6, lines 5-32), that the detergent further contains up to 5% by weight of an anionic surfactant (see page 7, lines 1-4), 10-50% by weight of a carbonate salt (see page 7, lines 6-11), and a builder/sequesterant material, such as GLDA (i.e., a chelating agent; see page 7, lines 13-31), and that the detergent is in the form of an aqueous liquid or a unit dose formulation (see page 10, lines 9-30), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-8 and Tables 1-3. Therefore, instant claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are anticipated by Serrasqueiro et al, WO 2021/073901.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lauridsen et al, WO 2006/131503.
Lauridsen et al, WO 2006/131503, discloses a detergent composition comprising a carbohydrate oxidase, lactose, a bleach activator and a surfactant (see abstract and paragraph 22). It is further taught by Lauridsen et al that the composition contains 0.1-1000 OXU per liter of detergent solution of carbohydrate oxidase (see paragraphs 7-16), 0.05-5 g/L of lactose (i.e., a reducing sugar; see paragraph 17), 1-40% by weight of an anionic surfactant, such as an alkyl sulfate and alpha-sulfo fatty acid methyl ester (see paragraphs 36-37), 0.2-40% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, such as an alkyl dimethyl amine oxide (i.e., an amine source) or an alcohol ethoxylate (see paragraph 38), 0-50% by weight of a carbonate (i.e., a base) or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (i.e., a chelating agent) (see paragraph 39), and a stabilizing agent, such as lactic acid (see paragraph 41), wherein the composition is in the form of a liquid containing up to 70% by weight of water (see paragraph 35) and an aqueous solution of the detergent has a pH of 6-11 (see paragraph 44), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-3. Therefore, instant claims 11-12 and 14-20 are anticipated by Lauridsen et al, WO 2006/131503.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski, US 2020/0109358, in view of Serrasqueiro et al, WO 2021/073901.
The primary reference of Piorkowski, US 2020/0109358, discloses a single dose pack including a container composed of a water-soluble film and a wash composition comprising a surfactant, an enzyme, an aqueous solvent, and 1-30% by weight of a saccharide system containing fructose and glucose (i.e., a reducing sugar) (see abstract and paragraphs 7-9). It is further taught by Piorkowski that the wash composition has a pH of 5.5-9.5 (see paragraph 20), that the wash composition contains 1-70% by weight of surfactants, such as alkyl ethoxylated sulfates, alcohol ethoxylates, and polyoxyalkylene alkylamines (i.e., an amine source) (see paragraphs 21-34), 0.01-5% by weight of an enzyme (see paragraph 36), up to 25% by weight of water (see paragraph 38), 1-20% by weight of a non-aqueous solvent, such as xylitol, mannitol and sorbitol (i.e., sustainable solvents; see paragraphs 39-40 and 44), and optional components, such as 0.01-0.5% by weight of an acid/base preservative (see paragraphs 45-46), and 0.01-3% by weight of chelating agents, such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (i.e., an amine source; see paragraph 51), wherein the unit dose wash composition is used in a dishwashing machine (see paragraphs 9 and 54-56). Specifically, note the Example in Table 1. Piorkowski does not teach a wash composition that contains 0.01-3% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme.
The secondary reference of Serrasqueiro et al, WO 2021/073901, is relied upon supra as disclosing a machine dishwashing detergent comprising a carbohydrate oxidizing enzyme and a surfactant system (see abstract and page 1, lines 3-8). It is further taught by Serrasqueiro et al that the dishwashing detergent contains 0.002-0.5% by weight of an active carbohydrate oxidase enzyme, such as hexose oxidase (i.e., a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme; see page 2, lines 1-11), wherein the carbohydrate oxidase enzyme is capable of removing tea stains without the presence of a bleach precursor or bleach activator, while using relatively small amounts of active enzyme (see page 2, lines 17-34).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of the secondary reference of Serrasqueiro et al, WO 2021/073901, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the primary reference of Piorkowski, US 2020/0109358, by including 0.002-0.5% by weight of an active carbohydrate oxidase enzyme, such as hexose oxidase, in their wash composition to improve the level of tea stain removal. Such modification would be obvious because one would expect that the use of 0.002-0.5% by weight of an active carbohydrate oxidase enzyme, such as hexose oxidase, as taught by Serrasqueiro et al, would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous wash composition taught by Piorkowski.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/828,617 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/828,617 claims a similar detergent composition comprising 0.01-5% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, such as hexose oxidase, 20-50% by weight of a non-aqueous/sustainable solvent, such as sorbitol, 15-40% by weight of an alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant, 1-5% by weight of ethanolamine, 0.01-5% by weight of a reducing sugar, such as fructose, 0.01-1% by weight of a base, 0.01-1% by weight of an acid, 0.1-2.5% by weight of a chelating agent, 2-8% by weight of lauryl sulfate, 0.5-5% by weight of a fatty acid, water, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/828,617), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 11-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/828,617.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/828,506 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/828,506 claims a similar liquid detergent composition contained in a water-soluble unit dose comprising 0.01-3% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, such as hexose oxidase, 0.01-20% by weight of a sustainable polymer, such as starch, that further contains a reducing sugar, such as fructose, 15-35% by weight of a surfactant, 5-30% by weight of an amine source, such as ethanolamine, 0.01-2% by weight of a base, 0.01-2% by weight of an acid, 0.1-2.5% by weight of a chelating agent, 2-8% by weight of lauryl sulfate, 0.5-5% by weight of a fatty acid, water, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the pH of the detergent is 6-12 (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/828,506), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/828,506.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,105 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/990,105 claims a similar hand soap composition comprising 0.001-3% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, such as carbohydrate oxidase, 0.05-30% by weight of an amine source, such as an amine containing enzyme, 1-40% by weight of a primary surfactant, a primary humectant, at least 40% by weight of water, 0.1-15% by weight of a secondary surfactant, a sustainable solvent, such as sorbitol, a reducing sugar, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,105), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 11-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,105.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,218 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/990,218 claims a similar body wash composition comprising 0.001-3% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, such as carbohydrate oxidase, 0.05-30% by weight of an amine source, such as an amine containing enzyme, 1-40% by weight of a primary surfactant, at least 40% by weight of water, 0.1-15% by weight of a secondary surfactant, a sustainable solvent, such as sorbitol, a reducing sugar, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,218), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 11-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,218.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,308 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/990,308 claims a similar hair care composition comprising 0.001-1% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, such as carbohydrate oxidase, 0.05-30% by weight of an amine source, such as an amine containing enzyme, 1-40% by weight of a primary surfactant, at least 40% by weight of water, 0.1-15% by weight of a secondary surfactant, a sustainable solvent, such as sorbitol, a reducing sugar, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,308), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 11-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/990,308.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/926,821 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/926,821 claims a similar liquid detergent composition contained in a water-soluble container comprising at least one surfactant, 0.001-3% by weight of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, such as carbohydrate oxidase, 0.01-10% by weight of a fermented amino acid primary amine source, a secondary amine source, such as ethanolamine, 5-45% by weight of water, a reducing sugar, such as fructose, a sustainable solvent, such as sorbitol, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/926,821), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/926,821.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
August 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights