Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/621,556

GLUCAN FIBER COMPOSITIONS FOR USE IN LAUNDRY CARE AND FABRIC CARE

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Mar 29, 2024
Examiner
MRUK, BRIAN P
Art Unit
1761
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nutrition & Biosciences USA 4, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
964 granted / 1301 resolved
+9.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1347
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1301 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 . Specification The first page of the specification should be updated to recite 1) That U.S. Application No. 16/416,318 is now abandoned; and 2) That the instant application is a divisional of U.S. Application No. 15/765,538. Claim Objections Claims 50 and 51 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of claims 47 and 48. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 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. Claims 27, 41 and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as being anticipated by Nagy et al, US 2015/0240278. Nagy et al, US 2015/0240278, discloses a soluble alpha-glucan composition comprising at least 75% alpha-1,3-glycosidic linkages, less than 25% alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages, less than 10% alpha-1,3,6-glycosidic linkages, less than 5% alpha-1,4-glycosidic linkages, a molecular weight less than 5000 daltons, a viscosity of less than 0.25 Pascal second, a solubility of at least 20% (w/w) in water (i.e. an aqueous solution unit dose composition), a polydispersity index of less than 5, and adjunct ingredients, such as water and ammonium sulfate (i.e., a surfactant; see paragraphs 124-145 and 263), per the requirements of the instant invention. The examiner notes that claim 27, as presently written, may contain a degree of substitution with at least one organic group of zero (i.e. no higher than 3.0 includes zero). Therefore, instant claims 27, 41 and 43-46 are anticipated by Nagy et al, US 2015/0240278. 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 27-51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,946,023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,946,023 claims a similar composition comprising an alpha-glucan ether, wherein the glycosidic linkages of the alpha-glucan ether comprises at least 75% alpha-1,3-glycosidic linkages, less than 25% alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages, and less than 10% alpha-1,3,6-glycosidic linkages, wherein the percent glycosidic linkages of the alpha-glucan are determined by methylation analysis, wherein the alpha-glucan ether has a degree of substitution with at least one organic group in ether linkage that is no higher than 3.0, wherein the alph-glucan ether comprises at least one structure of CG-O-C-, the composition further contains a surfactant, and wherein the composition is in the form of a liquid, gel, aqueous solution, or a multi-compartment sachet for treating fabrics and dishes (see claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,946,023), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 27-51 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,946,023. 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 February 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600927
PHOSPHORUS FREE LOW TEMPERATURE WARE WASH DETERGENT FOR REDUCING SCALE BUILD-UP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600923
A LAUNDRY CARE OR DISH CARE COMPOSITION COMPRISING A POLY ALPHA-1,6-GLUCAN DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595443
Organic Acid Cleaning, Disinfecting and Sanitizing Wet Wipe Composition
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590269
OBTAINING, FORMULATING AND PRODUCING OXIDIZABLE ORGANIC PLANT AND MINERAL CARBON FOR REMEDIATION, RECOVERY, CONDITIONING OF SOIL, SUBSOIL, WATER SOURCES IMPREGNATED WITH FATS, OILS AND HYDROCARBONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577499
Post Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) Cleaning
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1301 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