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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/07/2026.
Claims 1-3, and 5-7 are pending. Claims 4, and 17-20 are canceled, claims 9-16 are withdrawn, and claim 1 and 9 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, have fully been considered. The rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-8 under 35. U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lang (US20180371380A1) and the rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-8 as nonstatuatory double patenting of claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9 of prior US Patent No. US10,472,596B2 are maintained for the reasons cited in the previous office action dated 04/08/2026.
The Applicant argues the nonstauatory double patenting rejection is not commensurate in scope with newly amended claims 1 and 9. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Newly amended claim 1 of the instant application teaches a phosphorous free composition consisting of a gluconate chelant, a carboxylate polymer, water, and optionally an aminocarboxylate chelant that is free of DPTA. Claim 1 and 11 of the ‘596 patent teaches a phosphorous free composition comprising of a gluconate chelant, a methyl glycine diacetic acid or DPTA aminocarboxylate, and water. Claim 14 of ’596 teaches weight % ranges overlapping with the weight ranges recited in claim 1. A DPTA aminocarboxylate is not required and can instead be a MGDA aminocarboxylate chelant. Hence, the instant claim is obvious over the substantially similar composition of ‘596.
The Applicant also traverses the rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-8 under 35. U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lang (US20180371380A1) because the allowable subject matter of claim 4 is rewritten in independent form in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the previous office action, claim 4 was determined to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record did not teach or suggest in general a method for treating laundry with a composition consisting of only 15-40 wt% gluconate chelant, 25-50 wt% carboxylate polymer, and 20-50 wt% water. However, the newly amended independent claim 1 includes all of the limitations of previous claim 4 and optionally an aminocarboxylate. Lang teaches a method for treating laundry with a composition comprising of a gluconate chelant, a MDGA or DPTA aminocarboxylate, and water in overlapping weight ranges. Hence, the newly amended claim 1 is obvious over the general teachings of Lang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et. al (US2018/0371380A1) hereinafter Lang.
Lang teaches methods and compositions for improving laundry quality. With regards to claim 1, Lang teaches a non-phosphorous laundry additive composition comprising chelants and a carboxylate polymer, and a method of beneficially controlling transition metals throughout the laundry process (see [0002]). The method of treating laundry comprises contacting the laundry with the additive composition where the composition controls transition metal contaminants and an initial wash process utilizing transition metal contaminated water supplied to the washer and/or transition metal contaminated soils or laundry supplied to the washer (see claims 1-2). Tables 7A-7B show enhanced whiteness via the whiteness index and the polyacrylic acid polymers function to control water hardness (see [0135]). Regarding the laundry additive composition, Table 1 teaches exemplary weight ranges comprising 20-80 wt% water, 1-30 wt% gluconate salt, 0.1-10 wt% additional chelants such as methyl glycine diacetic acid aminocarboxylate, 1-30 wt% carboxylate polymer, and 0-25 wt% additional functional ingredients (see Table 1; see [0013]). The use of a DPTA aminocarboxylate is not required, hence the composition taught by Lang can formulated free of it.
Lang does not explicitly disclose a method of using claimed composition consisting of only gluconate chelant, carboxylate polymer, water, and optionally an aminocarboxylate chelant. However, based on the general method teachings (see claims 1-2) and the general composition teachings in overlapping weight ranges with the instant claim (see claim 11) taught by Lang, the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would reasonably expect the method using the composition taught by Lang to effectively function with the composition consisting of water, gluconate, carboxylate polymer, and an optional aminocarboxylate chelant (the only components required in Lang’s inventive composition). The method and composition of Lang are substantially similar to the method and composition of the instant claim.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by Lang to the instant claim (15-30 wt% gluconate salt chelant, 25-30 wt% carboxylate polymer, 20-50 wt% water) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 2, Table 4 teaches a rinse with cold water following the laundry and laundry additive composition are added. Hence, the rinse cycle necessarily follows the initial wash process and adding of the laundry booster.
With regards to claim 3, Lang teaches the use of the non-phosphorous laundry additive composition to control the detrimental presence of transition metal contaminants in water sources employed throughout a laundry application (see [0061]). As recited above, Lang also teaches the benefit of a non-phosphorous laundry additive composition in controlling transition metals in laundry wastewater applications (see [0002]). It would be reasonable for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to expect the phosphorus-free laundry additive composition, designed to improve laundry wastewater applications, to not contain phosphorous in the wastewater.
With regards to claim 5, Lang teaches a method “wherein the dosing of the laundry additive conditioning composition is provided at a rate of: (a) about 0.5 fluid ounces to about 30 fluid ounces, (b) about 3 fluid ounces to about 30 fluid ounces per 100 pounds of linen, or (c) at a rate to control at least 0.1 ppm transition metals in the laundry process” (see claim 7).
With regard to claim 6, Lang teaches a method “wherein the dosing of the laundry additive composition is provided at a rate of about 0.5 to about 5 grams/L of solution of the water conditioning composition, and wherein the composition comprises from about 0.08 to about 0.8 grams/L gluconate chelant” (see claim 8).
With regard to claim 7, Lang teaches a method “wherein the contacting of the laundry additive composition is: before a bleaching and/or oxidizing step in the laundry process; and/or simultaneous with an alkaline detergent wash step in the laundry process” (see claim 11).
With regards to claim 8, Lang teaches a method “wherein the laundry additive composition is dosed into the washing machine” (see claim 9).
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory
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, and 5-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 6, 9, and 7 respectively of prior U.S. Patent No. US10,472,596 B2 hereinafter Lang. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant applicant application is obvious over Lang’s teachings of overlapping weight ranges for gluconate chelant, carboxylate polymer, and water in the laundry composition as recited in the 103 rejections above. Although Lang does not recite the wt % of gluconate chelant in claim 1, Lang teaches 1-30 wt% gluconate salt (see Table 1) which overlaps with the recitation in the instant application’s claim 1. Lang also teaches the method controlling water hardness and metal contaminants throughout the laundry process, and enhanced whiteness of the treated laundry (see [0035] and Tables 7A-7B). Hence, in view of Lang’s teachings and claims 1-2, claim 1 of the instant application are not patentably distinct.
Although the instant claims refer to the laundry composition as “laundry booster composition” and the claims of the prior patent refer to it as “laundry additive composition”, they are functionally equivalent. The scope of the invented methods in claims 5-8 of the instant application are identical and verbatim the same as Lang’s claims 5, 6, 9, and 7 respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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) 272-2817. 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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights