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 II, claims 7-13, in the reply filed on June 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 June 30, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1, the text below each of the numerals are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 2020/0109358) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US Patent No. 6,080,391), hereinafter “Tsuchiya.”
Regarding claims 7-11, Piorkowski teaches a single dose pack exhibiting improved enzyme stability, the unit dose pack including a container composed of a water-soluble film and a wash composition encapsulated within the container, wherein the wash composition includes a detergent surfactant, an enzyme, and solvent blend, wherein the solvent blend includes water; a non-aqueous solvent like propylene glycol, glycerin, polyethylene glycol or mixtures thereof; and a saccharide system including fructose and glucose (i.e., reducing sugars; see abstract), wherein the single dose pack is used for laundry applications (see [0007]). The detergent surfactant includes a nonionic surfactant (see [0021]) like alcohol ethoxylate (see [0028]), and is present in the wash composition at a concentration of from about 1 to about 70 weight percent, or from about 10 to about 60 weight percent (see [0034]). The enzyme includes mannanase, amylase, oxidase, among others (see [0035]), and may be present in the wash composition in effective amounts, such as from about 0.01 to about 0.5 weight percent active enzyme (for example, about 0.1 to about 5 weight percent of a 10% active enzyme solution), based on the total weight of the wash composition (see [0036]). The water is included in the wash composition at a concentration of up to about 25% total water, such as from about 5% to about 25% total water (see [0038]), and the non-aqueous solvents may be included in the wash composition in an amount of from about 1% to about 20%, by weight of the overall wash composition (see [0040]). The saccharide system may be included in the wash composition in an amount of about 1% to about 30%, by weight of the overall wash compositions, or in other embodiments, the saccharide system may be included in the wash composition in an amount of about 1% to about 5%, by weight of the overall wash composition. Piorkowski also teaches, in the sole Example, a wash composition comprising 23.1 wt% C12-C15 alcohol ethoxylate 7EO nonionic surfactant, 5.0 wt% propylene glycol (a non-aqueous solvent), 1.8 wt% monoethanolamine, 8.0 wt% added water, 4.0 wt% coconut oil fatty acid, 0.6 wt% mannanase enzyme solution, 0.4 wt% amylase enzyme solution, 16.3 wt% High Fructose Corn Syrup 55, i.e., blend of water, glucose and fructose (reducing sugars) (see [0059] and Table 1). Piorkowski, however, fails to specifically disclose the enzyme being an oxidase, in particular hexose oxidase (which reads on the Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme), the nonaqueous solvent in an amount from about 20 to about 50 wt% of the composition as recited in claim 7, which include glycerin and/or polyethylene glycol as recited in claim 10.
Tsuchiya, an analogous art in liquid washing detergents (see col. 3, lines 27-35), teaches that a suitable oxidase includes hexose oxidase (see col. 5, lines 22-27).
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 mannanase and amylase enzyme solutions in the above example with an oxidase because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Piorkowski in [0035] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and to have selected hexose oxidase as the specific oxidase because this is a known oxidase in a similar composition as taught by Tsuchiya.
It would also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the propylene glycol in the sole Example above with glycerin and/or polyethylene glycol because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Piorkowski in [0007] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one non-aqueous solvent for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. With respect to the proportions of the glycerin and/or polyethylene glycol, considering that Piorkowski teaches that the non-aqueous solvents may be included in the wash composition in an amount of from about 1% to about 20%, by weight of the overall wash composition as disclosed in [0040], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 20 wt%) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Piorkowski in view of Tsuchiya teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Piorkowski teaches that the wash composition may have a pH of about 6.5 to about 8.5 (see [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, Piorkowski in view of Tsuchiya teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Piorkowski teaches that the nonaqueous solvent also includes sorbitol (see [0039]), wherein the non-aqueous solvents may be included in the wash composition in an amount of from about 1% to about 20%, by weight of the overall wash composition (see [0040]).
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 7-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/828,506 in view of Piorkowski.
Regarding claims 7-13, copending ‘506 teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising: at least one surfactant in an amount of from about 15 to about 35 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; a sustainable polymer comprising a reducing sugar in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 20 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; an amine source in an amount of from about 5 to about 30 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 3 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; and water in an amount of from about 20 to about 95 wt % of the liquid detergent composition (see claim 11), wherein the Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme is selected from the group consisting of hexose oxidase, fructosamine oxidase, fructosamine kinase, carbohydrate oxidase, and any combination thereof (see claim 15). While the respective amounts of the surfactant, amine and reducing sugar overlaps, copending ‘506, however, fails to specifically disclose an alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant as the specific surfactant, ethanol amine as the amine source, fructose or glucose as the reducing sugar, and the incorporation of non-aqueous solvents like glycerin, polyethylene glycol and sorbitol, and fatty acid as recited in the claims, and the pH of the composition.
Piorkowski, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Piorkowski teaches that the wash composition comprises a detergent surfactant which includes a nonionic surfactant (see [0021]) like alcohol ethoxylate (see [0028]), monoethanolamine (see Table 1), fructose and/or glucose (i.e., reducing sugars, see [0007]) and non-aqueous solvents in an amount of from about 1% to about 20%, by weight of the overall wash composition (see [0040]) like propylene glycol, glycerin, polyethylene glycol, sorbitol or mixtures thereof (see [0007] and [0039]). Piorkowski also teaches that the wash composition may have a pH of about 6.5 to about 8.5 (see [0020]). Piorkowski also teaches that the wash composition exhibit a significantly greater enzyme stability when compared to other wash compositions (see [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated alcohol ethoxylate as the specific surfactant, monoethanolamine as the specific amine, fructose and/or glucose as the reducing sugars, nonaqueous solvents like propylene glycol, glycerin, polyethylene glycol, and/or sorbitol, and fatty acid in their optimum proportions into the liquid detergent composition of copending ‘506 because such incorporation will provide significantly greater enzyme stability as taught by Piorkowski.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 7-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/828,561 in view of Piorkowski.
Regarding claims 7-13, copending ‘561 teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising: at least one surfactant in an amount of from about 15 to about 35 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; a sustainable solvent comprising a reducing sugar in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 60 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; an amine source in an amount of from about 5 to about 30 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 3 wt % of the liquid detergent composition; and water in an amount of from about 20 to about 95 wt % of the liquid detergent composition. (see claim 11), wherein the Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme is selected from the group consisting of hexose oxidase, fructosamine oxidase, fructosamine kinase, carbohydrate oxidase, and any combination thereof (see claim 15). While the respective amounts of the surfactant, amine and reducing sugar overlaps, copending ‘561, however, fails to specifically disclose an alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant as the specific surfactant, ethanol amine as the amine source, fructose or glucose as the reducing sugar, and the incorporation of non-aqueous solvents like glycerin, polyethylene glycol and sorbitol, and fatty acid as recited in the claims, and the pH of the composition.
Piorkowski, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed in paragraphs 8 and 10 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated alcohol ethoxylate as the specific surfactant, monoethanolamine as the specific amine, fructose and/or glucose as the reducing sugars, nonaqueous solvents like propylene glycol, glycerin, polyethylene glycol, and/or sorbitol, and fatty acid in their optimum proportions into the liquid detergent composition of copending ‘561 because such incorporation will provide significantly greater enzyme stability as taught by Piorkowski.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 7-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/926,821 in view of Piorkowski.
Regarding claims 7-13, copending ‘821 teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising: at least one surfactant; a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid including a reducing sugar; a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme that inhibits reaction between the primary amine source and the reducing sugar; and water, wherein the water is present in the liquid detergent composition in an amount from about 20 percent to about 95 percent (see claim 11), wherein the Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme comprises fructosamine oxidase, fructosamine kinase, carbohydrate oxidase or combinations thereof (see claim 15). Copending ‘821, however, fails to specifically disclose an alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant as the specific surfactant and its amount, ethanol amine as the amine source and its amount, fructose or glucose as the reducing sugar and its amount, the amount of the inhibiting enzyme, and the incorporation of non-aqueous solvents like glycerin, polyethylene glycol and/or sorbitol in their amounts, and fatty acid and its amount as recited in the claims, and the pH of the composition.
Piorkowski, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed in paragraphs 8 and 10 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated alcohol ethoxylate as the specific surfactant, monoethanolamine as the specific amine, fructose and/or glucose as the reducing sugars, nonaqueous solvents like propylene glycol, glycerin, polyethylene glycol, and/or sorbitol, and fatty acid in their optimum proportions into the liquid detergent composition of copending ‘821 because such incorporation will provide significantly greater enzyme stability as taught by Piorkowski.
With respect to the specific proportions of the surfactant, monoethanolamine, reducing sugars like fructose and/or glucose, enzymes like oxidase, in particular, fructosamine oxidase, nonaqueous solvents like glycerin polyethylene glycol and/or sorbitol, and fatty acid, considering the teachings of Piorkowski regarding the respective proportions of the above components, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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