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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US Patent no. 6,080,391), hereinafter “Tsuchiya” in view of Piorkowski (US 2020/0109358).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13 and 15-17, Tsuchiya teaches malodour reducing compositions comprising one or more oxidoreductases in combination with a mediator for the reduction of malodour and products comprising such compositions (see abstract), and one of the products is a liquid laundry detergent composition (see col. 3, lines 17-34; col. 7, lines 58-61; and col. 8, lines 1-2). One suitable oxidoreductase is an oxidase such as hexose oxidase (E.C. 1.1.3.5), a carbohydrate oxidase (see col. 5, lines 22-51), i.e., a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme that inhibits reaction between a primary amine source and a reducing sugar. The oxidoreductase are used in at least about 0.001 wt% of the composition as suggested in at least Examples 2-8. One example of a mediator is L-tyrosine (see col. 6, lines 65-66), which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid, and is used in an amount like 5% (see 1st Table under col. 19). Tsuchiya also teaches that the liquid laundry detergent composition further comprises a surfactant or a surfactant system (see col. 8, lines 8-10 and 39-48), a builder such as ethylenediamine tetraacetate (EDTA) (see col. 9, lines 47-52), which is also a chelating agent, which reads on the secondary amine source. Tsuchiya also teaches that the product may be a one or a two compartment product (see col. 11, lines 35-36). Tsuchiya, however, fails to disclose the one or two compartment being water soluble; and the water in an amount from about 5 percent to about 45 percent of the detergent composition as recited in claim 1, or from about 20 percent to about 95 percent of the detergent composition as recited in claim 11; the reducing sugar as recited in claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14 and 18; the sustainable solvent as recited in claims 8, 9, 18 and 19; and the sustainable polymer as recited in claims 8, 10, 18, and 20.
Piorkowski, an analogous art, 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 solvent blend which includes water; a non-aqueous solvent; 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 non-aqueous solvent includes sorbitol, xylitol, or mannitol, among others (i.e., sustainable solvent; see [0039]). The wash composition may also include anti-redeposition agents which includes cellulose derivatives (i.e., sustainable polymer; see [0048]). The water is present in the wash composition in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 25 wt% (see [0009] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the one compartment product of Tsuchiya in a water-soluble unit dose pack, wherein the amount of the water in the enclosed liquid laundry detergent composition is within those recited because this is a typical product form of a similar composition as taught by Piorkowski. With respect to the specific amount of water in the detergent product and liquid detergent composition, considering that Piorkowski teaches from about 5 wt% to about 25 wt% water by weight of the composition, 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., 5-25 wt% water in the product, or 20-25 wt% water in the liquid detergent composition) 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).
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated reducing sugars like fructose and glucose; sustainable solvent like sorbitol, xylitol, or mannitol; and sustainable polymer like cellulose derivatives into the liquid laundry detergent composition of Tsuchiya because such incorporation provides improved enzyme stability as 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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-19 of copending Application No. 18/828,506 in view of Tsuchiya.
Regarding claims 1-20, copending US ‘506 teaches a detergent product comprising a water-soluble pouch and a detergent composition encapsulated within the pouch, and a liquid detergent composition, wherein the detergent composition and the liquid detergent composition, each comprises similar ingredients except for the a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid as recited in claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 and its amount as recited in claims 7 and 17.
Tsuchiya, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Tsuchiya teaches malodour reducing compositions comprising one or more oxidoreductases in combination with a mediator for the reduction of malodour and products comprising such compositions (see abstract), and one of the products is a liquid laundry detergent composition (see col. 3, lines 17-34; col. 7, lines 58-61; and col. 8, lines 1-2). One example of a mediator is L-tyrosine (see col. 6, lines 65-66), which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid, and is used in an amount like 5% (see 1st Table under col. 19).
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 a mediator like L-tyrosine, which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid in its optimum proportions into the detergent composition of copending US ‘506 because such incorporation will provide reduction of malodour of the composition as taught by Tsuchiya.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-19 of copending Application No. 18/828,561 in view of Tsuchiya.
Regarding claims 1-20, copending US ‘561 teaches a detergent product comprising a water-soluble pouch and a detergent composition encapsulated within the pouch, and a liquid detergent composition, wherein the detergent composition and the liquid detergent composition, each comprises similar ingredients except for the a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid as recited in claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 and its amount as recited in claims 7 and 17.
Tsuchiya, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Tsuchiya teaches malodour reducing compositions comprising one or more oxidoreductases in combination with a mediator for the reduction of malodour and products comprising such compositions (see abstract), and one of the products is a liquid laundry detergent composition (see col. 3, lines 17-34; col. 7, lines 58-61; and col. 8, lines 1-2). One example of a mediator is L-tyrosine (see col. 6, lines 65-66), which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid, and is used in an amount like 5% (see 1st Table under col. 19).
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 a mediator like L-tyrosine, which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid in its optimum proportions into the detergent composition of copending US ‘561 because such incorporation will provide reduction of malodour of the composition as taught by Tsuchiya.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-11 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/828,617 in view of Tsuchiya.
Regarding claims 11-20, copending US ‘617 teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises similar ingredients except for the a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid as recited in claims 11 and 13, and its amount as recited in claim 17.
Tsuchiya, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Tsuchiya teaches malodour reducing compositions comprising one or more oxidoreductases in combination with a mediator for the reduction of malodour and products comprising such compositions (see abstract), and one of the products is a liquid laundry detergent composition (see col. 3, lines 17-34; col. 7, lines 58-61; and col. 8, lines 1-2). One example of a mediator is L-tyrosine (see col. 6, lines 65-66), which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid, and is used in an amount like 5% (see 1st Table under col. 19).
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 a mediator like L-tyrosine, which is a primary amine source comprising a fermented amino acid in its optimum proportions into the detergent composition of copending US ‘617 because such incorporation will provide reduction of malodour of the composition as taught by Tsuchiya.
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