DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naqvi et al. (US 2018/0312788 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 14-15, Naqvi teaches a water-soluble unit dose article made from a water-soluble film of polyvinyl alcohol (instant claims 14-15) and polyvinyl alcohol copolymer(s); [17-18, 31,102], noting that the polyvinyl alcohol polymer is construed as polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer as well, which renders their blended form obvious. Naqvi’s article (i.e. system) comprises detergents of non-soap anionic surfactants such as alkylbenzene sulfonate (instant claim 2) in the amounts of 10-35 wt.%; [14, 43-44, 47, 66], non-soap nonionic surfactant (instant claim 3) such as alkoxylated fatty alcohol(s) in amounts of 15-30 wt.%; [17, 52-53, 66], organic solvent (instant 5) such as glycerol in the amount of 7.5 wt.% or 10-40 wt.%; [Example 1, 70], noting that glycerol is used and named under humectants which provides the same function as well. The amount of water taught by Naqvi is 15-35 wt.%; [abstract, claim 1]. The detergent article is usually utilized (instant 4) in the fields of cleaning substrate such as dishware and cloth washing (i.e. laundry) as indicated by Naqvi; [2]. It should be noted that all of the components of Naqvi are actually a common detersive detergent chemicals which are used in variety of laundry detergent compositions, which makes it obvious for the instantly claimed composition to be utilized in the laundry washing as well.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, and the amended amount of water to less than wt.% (i.e. 14.99 wt.%), it should be noted that; I)- “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6]. II)- Alternatively, it is noted that prior art of Naqvi, on page 8 Examples 1-6 tables, shows two types of water. First DI water (deionized) on column “% W/W” (left column) and second the “% Water from Material” (right column). Note that the amount of DI on “% W/W” column (left column) is identically present on the “% Water from Material” column (right column), wherein the “% Water from Material” additionally shows the original DI water (left column) plus the amount of all water which have been added to the composition through accompanying each ingredient or component of the composition. At the bottom of “% Water from Material” column it shows the final amount of water present in the composition which is, expectedly, higher than the amount of DI water (on left column) for each table on page 8. The specification of instant application, on the other hand, does not show its own “% Water from Material” but rather states the total water amount. As is construed for Naqvi, a similar consideration and calculation for instantly claimed composition (by adding the total Wt.% amounts of “water from material” to DI water on “% W/W” column would result in an amount of more than 15 wt% and more than 11.3 wt.% which would naturally and obviously render the instantly claimed amounts obvious (when compared to Naqvi). According to page 8 tables, the “% Water from Material” is quite significant when amount of DI water on left column is subtracted from. As result, the % water from material for example 1 is 15.5-5.11= 10.49, and for example 2 it is 18.9-11.3=7.6 wt.%.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, according to Naqvi above, the total amounts of anionic and nonionic surfactants are (10-35 %) + (15-30 %) = 25-65 wt.% respectively. Calculation of their ratios and its range results in 4 values (0.3, 0.7, 1.2, and 2.3) with considerable overlap with the instantly claimed values, thus rendering this limitations obvious. It is noted that; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (before the effective filing date) the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7-12, Naqvi teaches fatty acids (instant claim 7-8) such as coconut oil in the amount of 5 wt.%; [examples 1, 3], enzymes (instant 9) such as cellulase, amylase and lipase; [78-79], thickener (instant 10) such as glycerol; [70], soil release polymer (i.e. construed as performance polymer; instant claim 11) of polyethyleneimine ethoxylate; [12, 99], and chelating agent (instant 12) ethylenediamine -tetraacetate; [99, 77].
Regarding claim 13, Naqvi teaches use of pH adjusting agents (buffers) for adjusting the solution pH; [99], without teaching its range. The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties, namely pH of 6-10 at 10 % by weight water solution at 25 deg C, are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. pH, would Expectedly, be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claim 17, It is noted that all limitations of this claim is identical to that of claim 1 which, for the sake of brevity, will not be addressed again. The only exception is the claimed amount of water which is from 5 to about 11.3 wt.%. This limitation is construed as being rendered obvious because; ; I)- “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6]. II)- Alternatively, it is noted that prior art of Naqvi, on page 8 Examples 1-6 tables, shows two types of water. First DI water (deionized) on column “% W/W” (left column) and second the “% Water from Material” (right column). Note that the amount of DI on “% W/W” column (left column) is identically present on the “% Water from Material” column (right column), wherein the “% Water from Material” additionally shows the original DI water (left column) plus the amount of all water which have been added to the composition through accompanying each ingredient or component of the composition. At the bottom of “% Water from Material” column it shows the final amount of water present in the composition which is, expectedly, higher than the amount of DI water (on left column) for each table on page 8. The specification of instant application, on the other hand, does not show its own “% Water from Material” but rather states the total water amount. As is construed for Naqvi, a similar consideration and calculation for instantly claimed composition (by adding the total Wt.% amounts of “water from material” to DI water on “% W/W” column would result in an amount of more than 15 wt% and more than 11.3 wt.% which would naturally and obviously render the instantly claimed amounts obvious (when compared to Naqvi). According to page 8 tables, the “% Water from Material” is quite significant when amount of DI water on left column is subtracted from. As result, the % water from material for example 1 is 15.5 - 5.11= 10.49, and for example 2 it is 18.9 -11.3=7.6 wt.%.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
I)- Claim 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/752,914 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because;
Claims 1 and 2 corresponds to claim 1 of copending 18/752,914. The claims are not identical, however there exist a major overlap of the claims’ limitation, on the anionic and non-ionic surfactants and their ratios as well.
Claims 3-5 corresponds to claims 2-4 of copending 18/752,914 which are identical.
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 5 of copending 18/752,914 which do have a major overlap of ratio limitation.
Claims 7-8 corresponds to claim 1 of copending 18/752,914 which are not identical, but there exist an obvious limitation overlap.
Claims 9-10 and 12-15 corresponds to claims 6-7, 9-12 of copending 18/752,914 which are identical.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 16 of copending application 16/752,914 with similar limitations.
II)- Claim 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/752,875 (reference application). Although the instant independent claims 1 and 14 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because;
Claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 of copending 18/752,875 which are not identical, but there exist an obvious limitation overlap on the amounts of non-soap surfactant system (namely instant 50%-65% and reference 45%-65%).
Claims 2-13 and 15 corresponds to claims 2-13 and 15 of copending 18/752,875 which are identical.
Claim 14 corresponds to claims 14 of copending 18/752,875 which have overlap by common limitation of “polyvinyl alcohol polymer”.
Claims 15-17 corresponds to claim 15-17 of copending application 16/752,875 with similar limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/07/21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
Please note that the main argument of applicant is about newly amended amount of water which allegedly is not rendered obvious by prior art of Naqvi. This argument is responded to on the above rejections of claims 1,16 and 17. However , the other additional remarks will be addressed briefly.
B- In response to applicant’s argument (page 6) that; “The proposed modification would also undermine Naqvi's stated purpose. Where a proposed modification would render the prior-art composition unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the modification is not supported by a proper obviousness rationale. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see MPEP § 2143.0l(V). Likewise, a modification that changes the principle of operation of the reference does not support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959); see MPEP § 2143.0l(VI). Because Naqvi's inventive concept is premised on relatively high water content reducing Naqvi's water content to below 15 wt% would be contrary to Naqvi's stated teaching and purpose.”, it should be noted that the argument is acknowledged but it’s emphasis and focus is about a part of Naqvi which has no water amount overlap with the instantly amended amounts of water namely being less than 15 Wt.%. The overlapping amount)s) of water between Naqvi and instantly claimed composition (as disclosed and explained in specification) would be more evident when different types of water in Naqvi’s composition is recognized and analyzed. Present disclosure ignores the amount of water added intentionally to the composition during manufacturing it, and the other type of water which enters the composition’s chemical system unintentionally but surely. .Naqvi has recognized and separated then in two categories of “% W/W” Water and “% Water from Material”. When a combination of these two were considered and compared to applicant’s disclosure the overlapping range of water amount becomes more evident.
As construed, there is no clear chemical reason to assume that applicant’s composition with water amounts of more than 15 % would behave or function differently (i.e. unexpected results) than the same composition with amount of water less than 16 or 11.3 %.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/09/18
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights