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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 11, in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 10 (Group II) is directed to a process for preparing the cleaning system of claim 1 (Group (I) and this relationship clearly demonstrates that claims 1 and 10 are interrelated and pertain to the same invention. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the previous office action and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in line 3, “alfa” before “olefin” should be replaced with “alpha”
b) “Sulphobetains” in line 5 should be replaced with “sulphobetaines.”
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 3, 7 and 11 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 3 is indefinite because the phrase “lauryl alcohol (7-9) moles” in lines 5-6 appears to be an incomplete name of a nonionic surfactant, and it is not clear if the “7-9” inside the parentheses is part of the claim limitations or not. Could it be a “lauryl alcohol with 7-9 moles of ethoxylate?”
The term “acceptable” in claim 7, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite in the recital of “solid fillers” in line 2 because this component is already recited in claim 1, line 5, i.e. “fillers in solid form,” hence, a duplicate.
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.
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 1-2, 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrello (U.S. Patent No. 4,087,368).
Regarding claim 1-2 and 4-6, Borrello teaches water-soluble enzyme granules containing 5-95% by weight of a magnesium higher alkyl sulfate, which is an anionic surfactant, 5-20% by weight of water and a proteolytic enzyme (also known as protease) (see abstract; col. 1, lines 18-21), wherein one example of the magnesium higher alkyl sulfate is magnesium lauryl sulfate (see col. 3, lines 27-28). Borrello also teaches that the amount of the proteolytic enzyme preparation is such as to provide about 0.1 to 4.0 Anson units per gram of the granules (see col. 3, lines 15-19), for example 1.5 Anson units/g is equivalent to 6% active enzyme (see col. 4, lines 55-57). Other ingredients may be present together with the magnesium higher alkyl sulfate and the enzyme, for example, inorganic materials like sodium sulphate, among a few selections, and the total sulfate content may vary from 0 to 60% (see col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 4, 10-11). Additionally it may be desirable to add more filler or diluent to improve the workability and/or decrease the enzyme activity (see col. 2, lines 4-7). The granules may be of various shapes, and in one suitable form the granules are of spherical form, having diameters in the range of about 0.1 to 2.0 mm (equivalent to 100 microns to 2,000 microns) (see col. 1, lines 31-39). Borrello also teaches that the magnesium compound is blended with the enzyme and the other ingredients by mixing these ingredients with water, milled and passed through a plodder and extruded therefrom as a bundle of thin parallel threads and broken up in a granulating apparatus (see col. 1, lines 44-67), hence, the enzyme is encapsulated by the surfactant. Borrello, however, fails to specifically disclose solid granules or enzyme granules comprising 80-90 wt% magnesium higher alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant, 5-15 wt% proteolytic enzyme, 0-8 wt% fillers, and 5-10 wt% sodium sulphate as recited in claim 1, and the filler being silica or TiO2 as recited in claim 5.
Considering that Borrello teaches enzyme granules containing 5-95% by weight of a magnesium higher alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant, about 0.1 to 4.0 Anson units per gram of the granules of a proteolytic enzyme, e.g., 6% active enzyme; 0-60 wt% sodium sulphate, as discussed above, 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., 80-90 wt% magnesium alkyl sulfate; 6 wt% proteolytic enzyme, 5-10 wt% sodium sulphate) 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).
Inasmuch as the minimum amount of the filler, like silica or TiO2, is “0%,” Borrello need not disclose silica or TiO2 fillers.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Borrello further teaches other ingredients of the enzyme granules such as FD & C Blue 1 and D & C Green 8 dyes (see Example 1, col. 3, lines 41-52).
Regarding claims 8-9, Borrello further teaches that the enzyme granules may be added to a wide variety of washing products like laundry detergent or a dishwashing product (see col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrello as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11 above, and further in view of Leifheit et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,492,540), hereinafter “Leifheit.”
Regarding claim 3, Borrello teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Borrello teaches water-soluble enzyme granules containing magnesium higher alkyl sulfate (see abstract; col. 1, lines 18-21), wherein one example of the magnesium higher alkyl sulfate is magnesium lauryl sulfate (see col. 3, lines 27-28). Borrello, however, fails to disclose sodium lauryl sulfate.
Leifheit, an analogous art in cleaning compositions (see abstract), teaches the equivalency of magnesium lauryl sulfate with sodium lauryl sulfate as anionic surfactants (see col. 3, lines 57-61).
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 magnesium lauryl sulfate of Borrello with sodium lauryl sulfate because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Leifheit is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one anionic surfactant 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