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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 16 and 17 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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “(INCI Sultaines)” in line 3 of claim 16. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the limitation that appears within the parentheses is required. Claim 17 is included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 16. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 Frankenbach et al, WO 2014/190131.
Frankenbach et al, WO 2014/190131, discloses a cleaning composition comprising 20-70% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system contains 1-70% by weight of an anionic surfactant, such as branched C12-18 alkyl sulphates (see page 5, line 9-page 11, line 6), linear C10-13 alkyl benzene sulfonates, and C12 alkyl sulphate (see page 11, lines 7-23), and 0.1-15% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, such as ethoxylated alcohols and alkylpolyglycosides (see page 12, line 7-page 13, line 7), wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is 2:1 to 15:1 (see page 13, lines 8-14). It is further taught by Frankenbach et al that the composition further contains zwitterionic surfactants, such as alkyl betaines (see page 13, line 30-page 14, line 6), and that the composition contains 6.51-6.57% by weight of lactic acid (see Examples 1B and 1C), wherein the neat pH of the composition is 4.2-5 (see Example 1A-1C), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Tables 1-3, and especially note Examples 2.1-2.3, which contain 5.8% by weight of a lactic acid, 2.8% by weight of C11.8 linear alkyl benzene sulfonic acid, 13.6% by weight of HSAS (i.e., a mid-chain branched alcohol sulfate), 2.2% by weight of an ethoxylated alcohol, and adjunct ingredients, resulting in a ratio of sulfated anionic surfactant to sulfonated anionic surfactant of 4.86:1, and a nonionic surfactant content of 6.3% by weight of the surfactant system (i.e., 2.2/34.9). Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by Frankenbach et al, WO 2014/190131.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 Frankenbach et al, WO 2014/018309.
Frankenbach et al, WO 2014/018309, discloses a cleaning composition comprising a surfactant system comprising one or more anionic surfactants, a cleaning enzyme, and an organic acidulant having a calculated stability constant for Ca2+ of less than about 1.5 at a pH of about 4, wherein the cleaning composition has a neat pH of from about 2 to about 6 (see abstract and page 1, lines 23-30). It is further taught by Frankenbach et al that the cleaning composition contains 2-20% by weight of the organic acidulant, such as lactic acid (see page 4, line 16-page 6, line 3), that the cleaning composition contains 0.1-60% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein 20-97% by weight of the surfactant system is an anionic surfactant, such as C10-16 alkyl benzene sulfonates and C10-15 alkyl sulfates (see page 6, line 10-page 8, line 16), 0.01-10% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, such as alcohol ethoxylates and alkyl polysaccharides (see page 15, line 5-page 16, line 18), and amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactants, such as alkyl betaines (see page 17, line 19-page 18, line 10), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Example 1B, which contains 6.51% by weight of a lactic acid, 2.96% by weight of C11.8 linear alkyl benzene sulfonic acid, 15.42% by weight of HSAS, 2.37% by weight of an ethoxylated alcohol, and adjunct ingredients, resulting in a ratio of sulfated anionic surfactant to sulfonated anionic surfactant of 5.21:1, and a nonionic surfactant content of 6.15% by weight of the surfactant system (i.e., 2.37/38.54). Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by Frankenbach et al, WO 2014/018309.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 Huang et al, US 2022/0195350.
Huang et al, US 2022/0195350, discloses an anti-microbial detergent composition comprising 0.01-3% by weight of a diphenyl ether, 4.5-40% by weight of an organic acid, and from 4-60% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic surfactant, such as C6-20 alkyl linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and C6-20 alkyl sulfates, and the composition has a neat pH of from 1.5-5.0 (see abstract and paragraphs 8-14 and 27). It is further taught by Huang et al that preferred organic acids include lactic acid (see paragraph 25), that the composition further contains nonionic surfactants, such as ethoxylated alcohols and alkyl polysaccharides, wherein the weight ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is 1.3 to 5 (see paragraphs 28-29 and 34), that the composition contains 2-35% by weight of anionic surfactants (see paragraph 29), 2-35% by weight of nonionic surfactants (see paragraph 30), and betaines (see paragraph 75), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Tables 1-7, and especially note Examples 4A and 4D-4F. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by Huang et al, US 2022/0195350.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/621,171. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/621,171 claims a similar liquid hand dishwashing composition comprising 5-50% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system contains 60% by weight of anionic surfactants, at least 50% by weight of the anionic surfactant is a C8-18 alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant having an average degree of alkoxylation of less than about 0.1, 15% by weight of a cosurfactant, such as alkyl betaines, lactic acid, a sulfonated anionic surfactant, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the pH of the composition is less than 5 (see claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/621,171), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/621,171.
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 1-13 and 15-19 of copending Application No. 18/621,222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/621,222 claims a similar liquid hand dishwashing composition comprising 15-50% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system contains at least 40% by weight of anionic surfactants, at least 50% by weight of the anionic surfactant is a C8-18 alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant having an average degree of alkoxylation of less than about 1.0, 0.1-10% by weight of an alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, lactic acid, a sulfonated anionic surfactant, alkyl betaines, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the pH of the composition is less than 5 (see claims 1-13 and 15-19 of copending Application No. 18/621,222), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-13 and 15-19 of copending Application No. 18/621,222.
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
June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights