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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 December 2025 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed 08 December 2025. No claims have been amended. Currently, claims 1, 3-16 and 18-19 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 20250228 and 20250904.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kud, U.S. Patent No. 4,904,408, in view of Dey, WO 2019/075230, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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, 4-16 and 18-19 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 Fossum et al, US 2019/0390142.
Fossum et al, US 2019/0390142, discloses a fabric care composition comprising a graft copolymer containing (a) a polyalkylene oxide that has a number average molecular weight of 1,000 to 20,000 that is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide or butylene oxide, (b) N-vinylpyrrolidone, and (c) a vinyl ester, wherein the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is from 1:0.1 to 1:1, and wherein the weight amount of (a) is greater than the weight amount of (c) (see abstract and paragraphs 8-11). It is further taught by Fossum et al that suitable vinyl esters include vinyl acetate (see paragraph 13), that the graft copolymer is present in the composition in an amount of 0.1-50% by weight (see paragraph 30), that the weight ratio of (a) to (c) is 1:0.1 to about 1:0.8 (see paragraph 41), that the weight ratio of (b) to (c) is 1:0.1 to 1:4 (see paragraph 42), that 10-60 mole percent of the graft copolymer is hydrolyzed (see paragraph 53), that the composition contains dye transfer inhibitor polymers, such as polyvinyl pyrrolidones, wherein a ratio of the graft polymer to dye transfer inhibitor polymer is 10:1 (see paragraph 89), 1-70% by weight of surfactants, such as linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, alkyl ethoxylated sulfates and alkyl sulfates (see paragraphs 59-63), fatty acids (see paragraph 56), and encapsulated perfumes (see paragraph 57), and that the fabric care composition is in the form of a liquid, solid or is encapsulated in a pouch (see paragraphs 93-95), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-11 and Tables 1-11. Therefore, instant claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 are anticipated by Fossum et al, US 2019/0390142.
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, 3-16 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,589. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,891,589 claims a similar composition comprising 0.1-15% by weight of a graft copolymer comprising (a) a polyalkylene oxide that has a number average molecular weight of 1,000 to 20,000 that is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide or butylene oxide, (b) N-vinylpyrrolidone, and (c) a vinyl ester, wherein the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is from 1:0.1 to 1:1, and wherein the weight amount of (a) is greater than the weight amount of (c), dye transfer inhibiting polymers, perfumes, fatty acids, surfactants and adjunct ingredients (see claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,589), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1, 3-16 and 18-19 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,589.
Claims 1, 3-16 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/018,534 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 19/018,534 claims a similar laundry detergent composition comprising 0.01-15% by weight of a graft copolymer comprising (a) a polyalkylene oxide that has a number average molecular weight of 1,000 to 20,000 that is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide or butylene oxide, (b) N-vinylpyrrolidone, and (c) a vinyl ester, wherein the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is from 1:0.1 to 1:2, wherein the weight amount of (a) is greater than the weight amount of (c), dye transfer inhibiting polymer, such as polyvinylpyrrolidone in an amount of 0.001-1% by weight, perfumes, fatty acids, surfactants and adjunct ingredients, wherein the ratio of graft copolymer to the dye transfer inhibiting polymer is 30:1 to 10:1 (see claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/018,534), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1, 3-16 and 18-19 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/018,534.
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
January 27, 2026