Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/246,344

COMPOSITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF STAINS AND MALODOUR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 23, 2023
Examiner
BOYER, CHARLES I
Art Unit
1761
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Reckitt Benckiser Vanish B V
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
773 granted / 1093 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1127
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1093 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This action is responsive to applicants’ response received January 16, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-18 are currently pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 2, 4-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batal et al, US 5,047,163. Batal et al teach a bleaching composition for removing stains from cotton cloths comprising sulfonimine/TAED/perborate (col. 17, example 20) in powder or tablet form (claim 30). The composition comprises up to 60% peroxygen compound which may be a percarbonate (claims 1 and 3), 0.05 to 10% sulfonamine which may be sulf-11 (claims 1 and 18), TAED bleach activator (claim 22), and further ingredients include enzymes such as protease, amylase, and lipase (col. 9, lines 55). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a bleaching composition comprising percarbonate, sulf-11, TAED, and protease with confidence of forming an effective bleaching composition as all of these components are taught as essential or suitable by the reference. These compositions may have a preferred pH of 10.5 (col. 14, table III) and with respect to a method of washing fabrics, persons of skill in the art and consumers alike know how a laundry washing machine process works and know what types of fabrics may be laundered. Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds that the inventors are seeking synergistic activity against tough stains using a combination of percarbonate, , protease, and specific sulfonimine and this combination is not taught by the reference. The examiner accepts this assertion, but notes that the four ingredients claimed are all common and well-known in the art for laundering fabrics, as taught by the reference. With respect to the choice of a protease being given particular weight in the composition, enzymes, protease being the most common, are ubiquitous in laundry detergents. Perborates and percarbonates are far and away the most common persalts and are used interchangeably in the art. Sulf-11 may not be a common oxygen transfer agent, but it is specifically taught by the reference. It is not inventive to choose the most common ingredients known and then argue that a synergistic combination has been achieved. All claimed components are common laundry detergent ingredients and so the claimed invention is rendered obvious by Batal et al. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barreleiro et al, US 2018/0187130 alone or in view of Batal et al, US 5,047,163. Barreleiro et al teach a bleach granule comprising from 2 to 12% of a sulfonimine and from 40 to 80% TAED (¶93-100), wherein this granulate is added to a dishwashing detergent with a pH of 9-11 and comprising up to 25% peroxygen compound, including percarbonates, and enzymes including protease (¶125-134). Preferred sulfonimines include sulf-11 (¶27) and so first, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a bleaching composition comprising percarbonate, sulf-11, TAED, and protease with confidence of forming an effective bleaching composition as all of these components are taught as essential or suitable by the reference. Furthermore, though the granule in this example is added to a dishwashing composition, the reference contemplates adding these granules to a laundry detergent composition (¶162) and persons of skill in the art understand that laundry detergents also contain bleaching agents, bleach activators, and bleach catalysts with a pH of 9-11. If this is not convincing on its face, Batal et al are relied upon as set forth above to demonstrate that laundry detergents having the pH claimed and containing bleaching agents, bleach activators, and bleach catalysts are known in the art and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a laundry detergent according to Barreleiro et al with a pH of 9-11 and containing bleaching agents, bleach activators, and bleach catalysts as taught by Batal et al. Again, applicants traverse on the grounds that the reference does not form their synergistic combination of components, and again the examiner points out that percarbonates and proteases are among the most common detergent ingredients known. It is not inventive to choose the most common ingredients known and then argue that a synergistic combination has been achieved. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430. 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 5712722817. 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. /CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2023
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 29, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600921
NO RINSE QUAT/ACID/ETHOXYLATED ALCOHOL DISINFECTANT COMPOSITION FOR FOOD CONTACT SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600926
TREATMENT COMPOSITIONS WITH MODIFIED AMINO ACID DIMERS FOR DELIVERING A BENEFIT AGENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593839
FABRIC CARE COMPOSITION COMPRISING A MIXTURE OF CATIONIC BIOCIDE, FUNCTIONALIZED ALKYLPOYGLYCOSIDE, AND SULFOLAURATE SALT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595436
CHEMICAL PRODUCT COMPRISING AN ANIONIC SURFACTANT, CHELANT, AND ENZYME, AND PROCESS FOR CLEANING NANOFILTRATION AND REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590272
HYDROPHOBIC FINISH CAR WASH COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING AN AMINOSILICONE AND AMPHOTERIC/NONIONIC SURFACTANT MIXTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1093 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month