DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 26, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed August 26, 2026. Claim 59 has been cancelled. New claims 60 and 61 have been added. Currently, claims 24-32, 34-39, 56-58 and 60-61 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office actions, Paper Nos. 20231129, 20240730, 20250211 and 20250729.
The rejection of claims 24-32, 34-39 and 56-58 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677 is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
Claim 60 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677 claims a similar method of cleaning teeth in an oral cavity with a cleaning composition comprising water as a carrier, minute fibrils in an entangled network structure containing a branched structure having thicker fibrils from which branch thinner fibrils and having a diameter of 250-20,000 nm, 10-40% by weight of abrasive particles, such as silica, a superabsorbent polymer, a surfactant, a humectant, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claim 60 is an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant continues to argue that independent claim 57 is directed at a method of removing dental biofilm or plaque in an oral cavity and that U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677 is directed at a method of cleaning teeth. The examiner agrees with applicant on this point and further maintains that these inventions are obvious in view of one another under nonstatutory double patenting. Specifically, the examiner maintains that U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677 claims a similar method of cleaning teeth in an oral cavity with a cleaning composition comprising water as a carrier, minute fibrils in an entangled network structure containing a branched structure having thicker fibrils from which branch thinner fibrils and having a diameter of 250-20,000 nm, 10-40% by weight of abrasive particles, such as silica, a superabsorbent polymer, a surfactant, a humectant, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-37, and especially claims 29-34, of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677), as required in the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 61 is allowed. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 11,918,677 does not claim a method of removing dental biofilm or plaque in an oral cavity with a cleaning composition comprising a carrier fluid and 0.2-3% by weight of fiber forming an entangled network structure and containing solid particles of at least one of silica, calcium carbonate, hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, fluorophosphate or alumina, as required by applicant in independent claim 61.
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
September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights