DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed October 31, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 6, 8 and 18. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Currently, claims 1 and 3-20 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. 20250729.
The objection of the first line of the specification is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The objection of claim 8 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “between 30% and 80% percent slow crystallizing agent” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “(% slow CA)” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “has a dissolution rate of solubility percent greater than 5% at 37 degrees Celsius” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.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as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ghosh et al, WO 2021/123018, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Taylor et al, US 2004/0097387, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Andreas et al, US 2002/0045555, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The provisional rejection of claims 7-12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 7-9 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/366,712 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,710 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-6, 13-15 and 17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-6, 10-12 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,712 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 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,713 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,714 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,715 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 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,717 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 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,719 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 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,730 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 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,736 is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the instant specification does not provide support for the newly added limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of fatty acids having greater than 12 methylene groups” that is recited in instant claims 1 and 18. Instant claims 3-17 and 19-20 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claims 1 and 18. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 and 3-20 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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of fatty acids having greater than 12 methylene groups” that is recited in instant claims 1 and 18”. The limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of fatty acids having greater than 12 methylene groups” 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 “substantially free of fatty acids having greater than 12 methylene groups”. Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the limitation “substantially free of fatty acids having greater than 12 methylene groups”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 7-12 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,712 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,712 claims a similar solid dissolvable composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, water, and a freshness benefit agent, such as perfumes, wherein the composition is made by mixing the components, followed by drying (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,712), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 7-12 and 16 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,712.
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 October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that applicant has requested that the obviousness-type double patenting rejection over copending Application Nos. 18/366,710, 18/366,712, 18/366,713, 18/366,714, 18/366,715, 18/366,717, 18/366,719, 18/366,730, and 18/366,736 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
December 29, 2025