DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 18, 2025. Applicant has amended claim 1. Currently, claims 1-20 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 action, Paper No. 20250818.
The objection of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Delaney et al, EP 3,650,524, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Delaney et al, US 2020/0140789, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Woo et al, US 2011/0146725, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,093 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,108 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,585 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,241,041 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,768 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 17/978,272 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/452,098 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/676,935 is maintained for the reasons of record. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that copending Application No. 18/676,935 has issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,398,343.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/042,353 is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Interpretation
The examiner construes the limitation “composition is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid” that is recited in newly amended claim 1 to mean that the composition contains “less than 1% by weight of organic acids other than citric acid”, as defined by applicant on page 3, lines 10-16 of the instant specification.
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 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/284,816 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 19/284,816 claims a similar liquid fabric care composition comprising 10-50% by weight of citric acid, 0.01-20% by weight of a fragrance material, 30-90% by weight of water, 0.1-8% by weight of nonionic surfactants, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the liquid fabric care composition has a neat pH of 2-6 (see claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/284,816), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/284,816.
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 November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Delaney et al, EP 3,650,524, does not teach or suggest in general a liquid fabric care composition that is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid, as required by applicant in newly amended instant claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as stated supra, the examiner construes the limitation “composition is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid” that is recited in newly amended claim 1 to mean that the composition contains “less than 1% by weight of organic acids other than citric acid”, as defined by applicant on page 3, lines 10-16 of the instant specification. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that Delaney et al, EP 3,650,524, clearly discloses that their composition contains as little as 0.05% by weight of acetic acid, and 0.5% by weight of vinegar (see paragraphs 33-34 of Delaney et al, EP 3,650,524), as required by applicant in the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that Delaney et al, US 2020/0140789, does not teach or suggest in general a liquid fabric care composition that is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid, as required by applicant in newly amended instant claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as stated supra, the examiner construes the limitation “composition is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid” that is recited in newly amended claim 1 to mean that the composition contains “less than 1% by weight of organic acids other than citric acid”, as defined by applicant on page 3, lines 10-16 of the instant specification. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that Delaney et al, US 2020/0140789, clearly discloses that their composition contains as little as 0.05% by weight of acetic acid, and 0.5% by weight of vinegar (see paragraphs 34-35 of Delaney et al, US 2020/0140789), as required by applicant in the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that Woo et al, US 2011/0146725, does not teach or suggest in general a liquid fabric care composition that is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid, as required by applicant in newly amended instant claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as stated supra, the examiner construes the limitation “composition is substantially free of organic acids other than citric acid” that is recited in newly amended claim 1 to mean that the composition contains “less than 1% by weight of organic acids other than citric acid”, as defined by applicant on page 3, lines 10-16 of the instant specification. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that Woo et al, US 2011/0146725, clearly discloses that their composition contains as little as 0.01% by weight of formic acid, 0.1% by weight of lactic acid, 0.1% by weight of acetic acid, and 0.1% by weight of oxalic acid (see paragraphs 16 and 24-30 of Woo et al, US 2011/0146725), as required by applicant in the instant claims.
The examiner notes that applicant has requested that the obviousness-type double patenting rejections over U.S. Patent Nos. 11,781,093, 12,031,108, 11,891,585, 12,241,041 and 11,072,768 and obviousness-type double patenting rejections over copending Application Nos. 17/978,272, 18/452,098, 18/676,935 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,398,343) and 19/042,353 be held in abeyance until an indication of allowable subject matter in the instant application is identified.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
January 14, 2026