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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Claim 11 is amended in the response filed 8/4/2025.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending 18/107,094 Application No. US20230250362A1 is maintained because rejections cannot be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending 18/107,094 Application No. US20230250362A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in the same method of laundering fabric comprising the same phenolic antioxidant, surfactant, and iron. As optimization of ingredients and ratios are within the level of ordinary skill and make obvious the copending applications. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/4/2025, with respect to claims 1-14 urging Mueller et al. do not teach the claimed 0.001ppm to about 10.0 ppm iron as required by claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (WO2021/160851 A1) has been withdrawn upon consideration that conversion of weight percentage to ppm is that 0.1-10% converts to 1000-100,000 ppm. Using Meuller’s lower range of 0.005% that converts to 50 ppm which is still well above the claimed 0.001ppm to about 10.0 ppm iron as required by claim 1. Accordingly the rejection is withdrawn. Upon an updated search Miracle et al. (US 2020/0032173 A1) and Qin et al. (US 20160326467 A1) are found pertinent to the instant claims.
New Grounds of 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (US 2016/0326467 A1) further in view of Miracle et al. (US 2020/0032173A1) as evidenced by PubChem MSDS https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Octadecyl-DI-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate
Qin et al. teach claim 1 method of laundering fabric (see abstract) comprising the steps of: (a) contacting a detergent composition comprising linear alkylbenzene sulphonate detersive surfactant [0195] and [0344]
And teach C8-C24 alkyl sulphate detersive surfactant [0195] and phenolic antioxidant [0369] having the claimed structure [0273] copied herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponding to the claimed structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed index a is taught as x and is 1 or 2,
wherein when a taught as x is about 1, claimed R2 is taught as R1 is a C3-C6 branched alkyl, preferably the claimed t-butyl and claimed R1 is taught as R —OCH3 (methoxy group),
wherein when a is about 2, at least one R2 group must be ortho to the hydroxyl group, or one R2 is t-butyl and the other R2 is selected from t-butyl and methyl, see [0274-0277]
Qin et al. [0319] teaches effective amount of the liquid detergent compositions herein added to water to form aqueous laundering solutions can comprise amounts sufficient to form from about 500 to 7,000 ppm of composition in aqueous washing solution, or from about 1,000 to 3,000 ppm of the detergent composition. See also [0321] encompassing the claim 1 limitation to form a wash liquor.
Qin et al. teach on page 25 the wash liquor comprises 0.1-60% total surfactant [0194] (which conversion is inclusive of 1000ppm) thus encompassing the claim 1 from about 50 ppm to about 2000 ppm linear alkylbenzene sulphonate detersive surfactant [0195].
Qin et al. teach the claim 1 amount from about 0.1 ppm to about 200 ppm phenolic antioxidant [0271] teaching antioxidant is in the composition from about 0.001 to about 0.08% which conversion to 10-800 ppm overlaps with the claimed range.
Qin et al. teach the claim 1 amount from about 0.001 ppm to about 10.0 ppm iron, page 24 [0190-0191] teaching the washing medium will typically have from about 0.005ppm to about 5ppm of transition metal complex ligands with iron, manganese and or chromium.
Qin et al. teach having a pH in 3-9 [0225] encompassing the claim 1 pH range of from greater than about 7.0 to about 12.0.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the molar ratio of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate detersive surfactant to C8-C24 alkyl sulphate detersive surfactant present in the wash liquor is in the range of from about 0.05 to about 200 is met by the prior art teaching the inclusion of both anionic surfactants in their detergent composition.
Limitation to claim 1 (b) contacting fabric with the wash liquor; and claim 1 (c) laundering the fabric.is met by the examples illustrating washing the fabric in the wash liquor. See for example page 41, [0376] table 11.
Qin et al. do not teach claim 1 limitation of about 10 to about 750 ppm C8-C24 alkyl sulphate, instead [0237] teaches 1-10%.
However, Miracle et al. [0048] guide one of ordinary skill to 0-5% surfactant when the detergent is a laundry detergent or a fabric softener.
Qin et al. and Miracle et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of antioxidant based laundry detergents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Qin et al. with the lower the ppm of the C8-C24 alkyl sulphate as claimed because Qin et al. guide the total amount of surfactant encompassing 1000ppm in general and Miracle et al. teach optimizing the amount of surfactant less than 0.1% depending on the formulations intended use in general. Furthermore, optimizing the ppm of the surfactant is well within the skill of PHOSITA and the difference from the claimed range and the prior art range does not amount to a patentable difference as the units are in ppm.
Qin et al. teach claims 2-3 on page 40, [0369] teaching suitable antioxidants include, but are not limited to, alkylated phenol (Such as BHT, Irganox(R) 1135, Irganox(R) 1076, Irganox(R) 1010, Irganox.R. 1330, and IrganoxR 1035; IrganoxR products commercially available from BASF), aromatic amine and its derivatives (such as IrganoxR 5057), Cl-, 3-, y-, 8-tocoph erol, ethoxyquine, 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline, 2,6-di-tert-butyl hydroquinone, tert-butyl-hydroxy anisole, lignosulphonic acid and salts thereof, 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8- tetra-methylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (TroloxTM), 1,2-ben Zisothiazoline-3-one (Proxel GXLTM), a benzofuran or benzopyran. See also the attached PubChem MSDS showing of common knowledge that
PNG
media_image3.png
300
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is the octadecyl di-t-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate antioxidant structure of claim 3, See search notes https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Octadecyl-DI-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate illustrating the antioxidant in claim 3 is the last structure in claim 2 with the commonly known synonym IRGANOX 1076.
Qin et al. teach claim 4 limitation to wherein the C8-C24 alkyl sulphate detersive surfactant is a C12-C14 alkyl sulphate detersive surfactant in [0195] teaching preferred sulphonates are C10-13 alkyl benzene sulphonate.
Qin et al. teach claim 5 limitation to wherein the linear alkylbenzene sulphonate detersive surfactant is a C11-C13 linear alkylbenzene sulphonate in [0195] teaching preferred sulphonates are C10-13 alkyl benzene sulphonate.
Qin et al. teach claim 6 limitation to wherein the molar ratio of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate detersive surfactant and C8-C24 alkyl sulphate detersive surfactant present in the wash liquor in the range of from about 0.1 to about 50 is met by [0194-0196] teaching the inclusion of both anionic surfactants in their detergent composition.
Qin et al. teach the claim 7 limitation to wherein the wash liquor comprises from about 0.4 ppm to about 5.0 ppm iron on page 24 [0190-0191] teaching the washing medium will typically have from about 0.005ppm to about 5ppm of transition metal complex ligands with iron.
Qin et al. do not teach claim 8 limitation to wherein the wash liquor has a pH of from about 10.0 to about 12.0, however, Miracle et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the concept that the wash water will have a pH of between about 6.0 and about 12. [0094]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed pH range, because the pH of the wash water is generally changing in use and Miracle et al. teach it is commonly known the wash water will have a pH of 6-12 with a composition comprising the similar antioxidant based laundry detergent.
Qin et al. teach claim 9 limitation to wherein the wash liquor has a pH of from above about 7.0 to less than about 10.0 by teaching one of ordinary skill that their wash liquor has a pH in 3-9 [0225].
Qin et al. teach the claim 10 limitation to wherein the detergent composition comprises from about 0.4 ppm to about 200 ppm chelant on page 24 [0190-0191] teaching the washing medium will typically have from about 0.005ppm to about 5ppm of transition metal complex ligands with chromium. See also [0208].
Qin et al. teach claim 11 wherein the chelant is selected from DETA, MGDA, EDDS, TETA, in [0208].
Qin et al. teach limitation to wherein the detergent composition comprises from about 0.2 ppm to about 200 ppm perfume on page 32 [0278] teaching 0.001-3 wt% which teaching is inclusive of 10 ppm perfume thus encompasses the claimed range.
Qin et al. teach claim 13 limitation to wherein the detergent composition comprises protease in an amount from about 0.2 ppm to about 80 ppm protease in [0165] teaching protease enzymes in an amount of about 0.00001% to 0.001% which converts into 0.1ppm to 10ppm.
Qin et al. teach claim 14 limitation to wherein the wash liquor comprises from about 0.01 ppm to about 200 ppm hueing agent on page 40, table 3 describing 1ppm or 2 ppm hueing agent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761