CTNF 18/752,875 CTNF 83877 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 includes the limitation “performance polymer” which there is no reference or explanation recited in the original specification. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 states the limitation "performance polymer" without any disclosure in submitted specification regarding its chemical name(s), type or its chemical function. As is construed, presence of any useful active polymer disclosed by prior art would/could be considered as the limitation “performance polymer”. In the instant case and for the purpose of examination, a soil release polymer would render this limitation obvious. Applicant’s further clarification would eliminate this ambiguity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-15 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 5-50 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 17-35 wt.%; [33]. 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 6 , according to Naqvi above, the total amounts of anionic and nonionic surfactants are (5-50 %) and (15-30 %) respectively. Calculation of their ratios (5-50 / 15-30) and its range results in 4 values (0.33, 0.17, 3.3 and 1.7) 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] . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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)- Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending application 18/752,860 (reference application) in view of Naqvi et al. (US 2018/ 0312788 A1). Claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 of copending 18/752,860. The claims are identical except that “860” does not teach the amount of more than 25 % by weight of anionic surfactant. However the analogous art of Naqvi teaches a unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a detergent composition with non-soap anionic surfactant(s) in amounts of 5-50 wt.%; [14]. At the time, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a higher amounts of anionic surfactant with the motivation of enhancing detergent’s stain removing effects, as taught by Naqvi above. Claims 2-13 and 15 corresponds to claims 2-13 and 15 of copending “860” which are identical. . Claim 14 corresponds to claim 14 of copending “860” which have overlap over water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol polymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. II)- Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending application 18/752,887 (reference application) in view of Naqvi et al. (US 2018/ 0312788 A1). Claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 of copending 18/752,887. The claims share the same limitations except that “887” does not teach the amount of more than 25 % by weight of anionic surfactant. However the analogous art of Naqvi teaches a unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a detergent composition with non-soap anionic surfactant(s) in amounts of 5-50 wt.%; [14]. At the time, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a higher amounts of anionic surfactant with the motivation of enhancing detergent’s stain removing effects, as taught by Naqvi above. Claim 2 corresponds to claim 2 of copending “887” which have overlap over anionic non-soap surfactant of alkyl ether sulfate. Claims 3-13 and 15 corresponds to claims 3-13 and 15 of copending “887” which are identical. Claim 14 corresponds to claim 14 of copending “887” which have overlap over water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol polymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. III)- Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending application 18/752,914 (reference application) in view of Naqvi et al. (US 2018/ 0312788 A1). Claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 of copending 18/752,914. The claims share the same limitations except that “887” does not teach the amount of more than 25 % by weight of anionic surfactant. However the analogous art of Naqvi teaches a unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a detergent composition with non-soap anionic surfactant(s) in amounts of 5-50 wt.%; [14]. At the time, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a higher amounts of anionic surfactant with the motivation of enhancing detergent’s stain removing effects, as taught by Naqvi above. Claim 2 corresponds to claim 1 of copending “914” which have overlap over non-soap anionic surfactant of alkyl benzene sulfonate. Claims 3-5 correspond to claims 2-4 of copending “914” which are identical. Claim 6 correspond to claim 5 of copending “914” which have overlap of the anionic to nonionic surfactant ratio of equal to 1:1. Claims 9-10 correspond to claims 6-7 of copending “914” which are identical. Claims 12-15 correspond to claims 9-12 of copending “914” which are identical. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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 9 AM- 6 PM. 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 2026/04/16 /MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/752,875 Page 2 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/752,875 Page 3 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/752,875 Page 4 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/752,875 Page 5 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/752,875 Page 6 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/752,875 Page 7 Art Unit: 1767
Prosecution Insights