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 .
Specification
The first line of the specification should be updated to recite that “This application claims benefit of Provisional Serial Number 63/397,404, filed August 12, 2022.”.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “and” in lines 4 and 7 of claim 7 should be removed for grammatical purposes. 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 3, 6, 8-14 and 19-20 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.
Claim 3 is rejected 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”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if it is referring to weight or volume percent. Also one of the terms “%” or “percent” should be deleted. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “(% slow CA)”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the limitation within the parentheses is required. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 6 is rejected 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”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if it is referring to weight or volume percent. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "perfume" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that this limitation should be amended to recite “neat perfume” to provide proper antecedent basis. Claims 9-14 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 8. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the limitation "freshness benefit agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that this limitation should be amended to recite “neat perfume or malodor counteractant” to provide proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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, 3-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al, WO 2021/123018.
Ghosh et al, WO 2021/123018, discloses a soap composition comprising a soap active material and a fragrance composition (see abstract). It is further taught by Ghosh et al that the soap is in the form of a bar (see page 4, lines 4-9), that the soap active material is 5-95% by weight of the composition (see page 6, lines 18-22), that the soap active material is a sodium salt of a C8-22 fatty acid, such as caprylic (i.e., octanoic), capric (i.e., decanoic), and lauric (i.e., dodecanoic) acid mixtures (see page 6, lines 23-30), that suitable fragrances include linalool, wherein the fragrance is a free oil or is in an encapsulated form with a shell made of polyvinyl alcohol or chitosan (see page 9, line 20-page 13, line 5), that the fragrance is present in the composition in an amount of 0.01-10% by weight (see page 21, lines 18-21), that the soap composition has a moisture content of 10-15% by weight (see page 29, lines 10-11), and that the soap composition is made by adding the fragrance and fatty acid to a mixer, homogenizing the mixture into a soap, and passing the homogenized soap through a plodder to form a dried soap bar (see page 29, lines 7-20), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-6 and Tables 1-21. Although Ghosh et al is silent with respect to the Fiber test, Moisture test, Dissolution test, and Thermal Stability test values of their soap compositions, the examiner asserts that the soap compositions disclosed in Ghosh et al would inherently meet these requirements, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Although Ghosh et al generally discloses a solid soap composition that contains sodium salts of caprylic acid, capric acid, and lauric acid as the active material, the reference does not require such solid soap compositions containing these components with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a solid soap composition, as taught by Ghosh et al, which contained sodium salts of caprylic acid, capric acid, and lauric acid as the active material, because such solid soap compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Ghosh et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a solid soap composition containing sodium salts of caprylic acid, capric acid, and lauric acid as the active material is expressly suggested by the Ghosh et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al, US 2004/0097387.
Taylor et al, US 2004/0097387, discloses a soap bar comprising at least about 50% by weight of a soap having alkyl chain lengths of 8-10 carbon atoms, water, and free fatty acid (see abstract and paragraphs 7-10). It is further taught by Taylor et al that the soap bar contains sodium counter ions for the C8 and C10 fatty acids (see paragraphs 3 and 12), that the soap bars contain up to 1.5% of fatty acids containing 12 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain (see paragraph 13), and that the soap bars optionally contain a fragrance (see paragraph 18), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-2 and Tables 1-3. Although Taylor et al is silent with respect to the Fiber test, Moisture test, Dissolution test, and Thermal Stability test values of their soap bars, the examiner asserts that the soap bars disclosed in Taylor et al would inherently meet these requirements, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Although Taylor et al generally discloses a soap bar that further contains a fragrance, the reference does not require such soap bars containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a soap bar, as taught by Taylor et al, which further contained a fragrance, because such soap bars fall within the scope of those taught by Taylor et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a soap bar that further contains a fragrance is expressly suggested by the Taylor et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
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 and 3-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,709 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,709 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 and 3-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,709), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1 and 3-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,709.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,710 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,710 claims a similar low-water composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, 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. 18/366,710), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,710.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,713 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,713 claims a similar low-water composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, polyethylene glycol, 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. 18/366,713), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,713.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,714 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,714 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 (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,714), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-18 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,714.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,715 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,715 claims a similar low-water composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, polyethylene glycol, and a freshness benefit agent, such as perfumes (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,715), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-18 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,715.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,717 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,717 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. 18/366,717), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,717.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,719 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,719 claims a similar low-water composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, polyethylene glycol, 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. 18/366,719), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,719.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,730 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,730 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. 18/366,730), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,730.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,736 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/366,736 claims a similar low-water composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, polyethylene glycol, and a freshness benefit agent, such as perfumes, wherein the composition is made by mixing the components, followed by drying (see claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,736), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,736.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/045,636 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 19/045,636 claims a similar low-water composition comprising a crystallizing agent, such as a mixture of sodium salts of C8-12 fatty acids, water, and 20-70% by weight of perfume capsules, wherein the composition is made by mixing the components, followed by drying (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/045,636), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/045,636.
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
December 18, 2025