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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5-20-2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) 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 because 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 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-20 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, 3-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,709), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1, 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-19 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, 3-19 of copending Application No. 18/366,710), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1, 3-19 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-20 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1,3-20 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20 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, 4-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,713), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-20 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-20 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 (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/366,730), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are obvious formulation in view of claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-1498. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights