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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The second period at the end of claim 1 should be deleted. 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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “at least one alkoxylate unit or one alkyl chain comprising carbon obtained from carbon capture” in instant claims 1 and 3-11. The limitation “carbon capture” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “carbon capture”. Claim 2 and 12-15 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 3-7 and 12-13 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claims 3-7 and 12-13 recite the broad recitation “alkoxylate”, followed by the narrow recitation of “preferably ethoxylate”, “most preferably all the alkoxylate”, “preferably less than 10% of the alkoxylate” and “more preferably from a plant, algae or yeast”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “substantially all the alkoxylate”. The limitation “substantially all the alkoxylate” renders the claims vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “substantially all the alkoxylate”. Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the limitation “substantially all the alkoxylate”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Greenwood et al, WO 2020/057845.
Greenwood et al, WO 2020/057845, discloses a liquid laundry composition comprising 5-10% by weight of water (see abstract and page 2, lines 33-36), 3% by weight of an anionic surfactant (see page 4, lines 11-14), 2-25% by weight of a nonionic surfactant that contains 8-22 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain and 2-40 moles of ethylene oxide, which is obtained from a green source of carbon (see page 4, line 16-page 5, line 11), that the alcohol ethoxylates are prepared from primary sugars, biomass, waste plastics, municipal solid waste, marine carbon, waste oils, methane capture, and carbon capture (see page 5, line 13-page 8, line 24), and that the composition further contains free perfume and perfume microcapsules (see page 22, line 28-page 33, line 36), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-2. Furthermore, with respect to instant claims 1-15, the examiner asserts that the subject matter would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the patentability of a product by process claim does not depend on its method of production and where the examiner has found a similar product, the burden rests with the applicant to prove that that product is patentably distinct. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145. "The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes the determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not the process that must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685,688 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are anticipated by Greenwood et al, WO 2020/057845.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
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 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,813 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,813 claims a similar cleaning composition comprising an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant obtained from carbon capture, an alkyl ether sulphate, a fragrance, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,813), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,813.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,727 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,727 claims a similar perfume particle comprising an ethoxylate unit derived from carbon capture, such as an ethoxylated alcohol, a fragrance, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,727), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,727.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,313 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,313 claims a similar unit dose article comprising a surfactant containing an ethoxylate unit derived from carbon capture, such as an ethoxylated alcohol, an alkyl ether sulphate, a fragrance, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,313), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,313.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,824 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,824 claims a similar liquid treatment composition comprising an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant obtained from carbon capture, an alkyl ether sulphate, a fragrance, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,824), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,824.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-27 of copending Application No. 18/286,738 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,738 claims a similar fabric spray composition comprising an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant obtained from carbon capture, a fragrance, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 15-27 of copending Application No. 18/286,738), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 15-27 of copending Application No. 18/286,738.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-28 of copending Application No. 18/286,731 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,731 claims a similar fabric conditioner composition comprising a fabric softening active, an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant obtained from carbon capture, a fragrance, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 16-28 of copending Application No. 18/286,731), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 16-28 of copending Application No. 18/286,731.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/286,157 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,157 claims a similar laundry serum composition comprising an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant obtained from carbon capture, a free perfume, an anionic and/or cationic surfactant, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/286,157), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/286,157.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,811 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/286,811 claims a similar liquid laundry composition comprising a C8-22 alkyl chain and a mole average of from 1-40 ethoxylate units, wherein at least one ethoxylate unit or one alkyl chain are obtained from carbon capture, water, an alkyl benzene sulphonate, and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,811), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-15 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/286,811.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 16, 2025