Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/470,859

SURFACTANT BLENDS FOR HYPOHALITE-BASED DISINFECTING COMPOSITIONS

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Sep 20, 2023
Examiner
JAVANMARD, SAHAR
Art Unit
1622
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Gojo Industries Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
475 granted / 728 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
760
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 728 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Status of the Claims This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Restriction Requirement remarks filed on December 19, 2025. Applicant's election of species of sodium myristyl sulfate (1st surfactant) and cocobetaine (2nd surfactant) without traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply is acknowledged. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 1-20 are examined herein insofar as they read on the elected invention and species. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/470,622. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are drawn to disinfecting composition comprising: 1. greater than 0.5 wt.% of a hypohalite ingredient, based upon the total weight of the disinfecting composition; and a surfactant blend, the surfactant blend comprising: a first surfactant having a first surfactant surface tension T¹; and a second surfactant having a second surfactant surface tension T², wherein the second surfactant has an average tail chain length that is different than the first surfactant, and wherein the second surfactant has a head group that is different than the first surfactant, and wherein the disinfecting composition has an overall surface tension T, wherein T is less than T¹, and wherein T is less than T². The copending claims are drawn to disinfecting composition comprising: 1. from greater than 0.5 wt.% to 1.5 wt.% of a hypohalite ingredient, based upon the total weight of the disinfecting composition; and a surfactant blend comprising a first surfactant and a second surfactant, wherein the second surfactant has an average tail chain length value that is different than the first surfactant, wherein the disinfecting composition exhibits at least a 6-log reduction in C. diff. within 2 minutes. The two inventions overlap greatly in scope. Limitations regarding surface tension and log reduction are considered properties inherent to the composition. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties." Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Encarnacion (US PG PUB 2019/0261632) of record (IDS 12/28/23, reference #72). Encarnacion teaches a cleaning and disinfecting composition comprising about 11% by weight Sodium Hypochlorite, about 25% by weight Sodium Hydroxide; about 5% by weight Lithium Perchlorate; about 0.5% by weight stabilizer (claim 10), wherein the surfactant comprises sodium lauryl sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine (claim 12). Examiner notes that the limitations regarding surface tension are considered properties inherent in the disclosed active agent. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutual exclusive properties." Any properties exhibited by or benefits from are not given any patentable weight over the prior art provided the composition is inherent. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the disclosed properties are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product does not inherently possess the same properties as the instantly claimed product. Thus, based on the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are deemed anticipated over the cited art. Conclusion Claims 1-20 are not allowed. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sahar Javanmard whose telephone number is (571)270-3280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571-272-5548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. /SAHAR JAVANMARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594252
Methods for treating inflammatory skin conditions
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594256
A19-144, A2-73 and Certain Anticholinesterase Inhibitor Compositions and Method for Anti-Seizure Therapy
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594281
PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORMS AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582648
METHOD FOR TREATING CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DISORDERS USING DOPAMINE D3 PARTIAL AGONISTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569455
THERAPEUTIC AGENT FOR MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS/CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 728 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month