CTNF 18/757,856 CTNF 100995 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Information Disclosure Statement Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/16/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form. 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. 07-20-02-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 Ceulemans et. al (US20190330566A1) hereinafter Ceulemans . Ceulemans teaches a hard surface cleaning composition comprising low levels of surfactant and a carboxylated fructan (see Abstract). With regards to claims 1, 3-4, Ceulemans teaches the use of 0.005-2 wt% of carboxylated fructan (see [0091]), and a 0.01-10 wt% surfactant system which can comprise of alkoxylated nonionic surfactant, amine oxide surfactants, alkyl polyglycoside (glucoside) surfactants, or mixtures thereof (see [0028]). Although Ceuleman does not teach all of these limitations in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a composition comprising 0.01-10% wt surfactant system and a carboxylated fructan. The combination would lead to a cleaning composition that has the added benefit of improving the surface shine of the hard surface when applied (see [0007]; see also [0174]). With regards to claim 2 and 6, Ceuleman does not teach a single embodiment comprising a surfactant system of both alkyl polyglycoside and an alkoxylated nonionic surfactant. However, Ceuleman generally teaches the use of 1.0-2.5 wt% of the composition of alkoxylated nonionic surfactant, preferably ethoxylated alcohol, (see [0029]) and 0.1-4.5 wt%, preferably 1.0-2.5 wt% of alkyl polyglycoside (see [0045]). Hence the ratio of alkoxylated nonionic surfactant to alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably 1.0:2.5 (2:5) to 2.5:1 (5:2) which overlaps with the teachings of the instant claim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). With regards to claim 5, Ceuleman teaches the carboxylated fructan to be derived from carboxyalkylfructan (preferably carboxyalkylinulin), dicarboxyfructan having a degree of oxidation (DO) of from about 10 to about 100%, 6-carboxyfructan, fructan polycarboxylic acid, and mixtures thereof (see claim 4). With regards to claim 7, Ceuleman generally teaches the use of 1.0-2.5 wt% of the composition of alkoxylated nonionic surfactant, preferably ethoxylated alcohol, (see [0029]) and 0.1-4.5 wt%, of alkyl polyglycoside (see [0045]). With regards to claim 8-9, Ceuleman teaches the use of preferably carboxylated polyethyleneimine polymer at 0.005-5 wt% (see [0116]-[0117]). Carboxylated polyethyleneimine polymers are known to improve surface shine (see [0116]). With regards to claim 10, the pH of the composition is taught to be greater than 7.0, most preferably from 10-11, measured in neat composition for improved cleaning of greasy soil (see [0018]). The pH of Examples 1-5 and A-F are measured to be 10.3 (see [0168]; see also [0170]; see also [0172]). With regards to claim 11, Ceuleman teaches the composition to not comprise of an additional chelant (see claim 10). With regards to claims 12 and 14, Ceuleman teaches the use of an antimicrobial agent in as little as 0.001 wt%, preferably 0.25-0.9 wt%, of the composition (see [0094]). Additionally, Examples F, 4 and 5 comprise of 0.14 wt% DDAC (didiceyl ammonium chloride) which is an antimicrobial agent (see [0172]). With regards to claim 13, Ceuleman teaches suitable antimicrobial agents to be selected from the group consisting of quaternary ammonium compounds (see [0093]). With regards to claim 15, Ceuleman teaches a method of cleaning comprises the steps of “a) providing a hard surface cleaning composition of the present invention; b) applying the hard surface cleaning composition to a hard surface; c) optionally rinsing and/or wiping the surface” (see [0138]) . 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 § 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,365,373B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,365,373B2 claims a similar hard surface cleaning composition comprising of a surfactant system, carboxylated fructan, and carboxylated polyethyleneimine, not comprising of a further chelant, with a pH of greater than 7.0. The carboxylated fructan is taught to be selected from the group consisting of carboxyalkylinulin having from 3 to 4 carbon atoms in the alkyl moiety, dicarboxyfructan having a degree of oxidation (DO) of from 10 to 100% expressed as a molar percentage of monosaccharide units converted into the corresponding dicarboxy analogues, and mixtures thereof in US11, 365,373B2 claim 1. The method of cleaning a hard surface in instant claim 15 using the composition is identical to the method of cleaning a hard surface in US11,365,373B2 claim 6 using the similar composition . Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/757,856 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,856 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,856 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,856 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,856 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/757,856 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights