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 .
The examiner makes of record that instant claims 30-49 are supported in both Application Serial Number 16/663,485 and Provisional Serial Number 62/751,302. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that the effective filing date of instant claims 30-49 is October 26, 2018.
Specification
The first paragraph of the specification should be updated to recite that U.S. Serial No. 18/164,847, filed February 6, 2023, has issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,084,629.
Claim Objections
Claims 30-49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In instant claim 30, the limitation “nonionic ethoxylated propoxylated alcohol alkoxylate surfactants” should be amended to recite “nonionic ethoxylated propoxylated alcohol surfactants” for grammatical purposes.
In instant claim 38, the limitation “2 or more nonionic surfactant” should be amended to recite “2 or more nonionic surfactants” for grammatical purposes.
In instant claim 38, the limitation “ethoxylated propoxylated alcohol alkoxylate surfactants” should be amended to recite “ethoxylated propoxylated alcohol surfactants” for grammatical purposes.
Claims 31-49 are objected to for being dependent upon a claim with the above addressed objection problem (i.e., claim 30).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 30-42 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mondin, U.S. Patent No. 6,479,449.
Mondin, U.S. Patent No. 6,479,449, discloses a liquid cleaning composition containing at least one nonionic surfactant, triethanolamine (i.e., an alkaline source), glycerine or a glycol, an anionic surfactant, a perfume and a fatty acid (see abstract). It is further taught by Mondin that suitable nonionic surfactants include ethoxylated/propoxylated nonionic surfactants in an amount of 10-65% by weight (see col. 3, lines 39-42 and col. 5, lines 18-35), that suitable anionic surfactants include linear alkyl benzene sulfonates in an amount of 10-40% by weight (see col. 3, lines 45-46, col. 5, lines 36-47 and Examples 1-4), that the triethanolamine is present in the composition in an amount of 2-20% by weight (see col. 3, lines 29-33), that the composition has a neutral pH (see col. 6, lines 1-4), and that the composition is used in a process to clean a hard surface (see col. 1, lines 7-12), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-4, and especially note Example 2, which contains a ratio of anionic surfactant to EO/PO nonionic surfactant (i.e., Plurafac LF 300) of 3.5:1. Therefore, instant claims 30-42 and 44-48 are anticipated by Mondin, U.S. Patent No. 6,479,449.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
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 30-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,603,508. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,603,508 claims a similar method for cleaning a floor or a hard surface with a pressed solid composition comprising one or more anionic linear alkyl sulfonate surfactants, such as a linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, one or more nonionic ethoxylated-propoxylated alcohol surfactants or ethoxylated-propoxylated fatty alcohol surfactants, wherein the nonionic surfactant has a ratio of propoxylation to ethoxylation of greater than 1, such as a C12 to C14 fatty alcohol with (EO)3-(PO)6, a solidification agent, an alkalinity source, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is between 1:1 and 9:1, and wherein the pH of a use solution of the composition is 7-9 (see claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,603,508), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 30-49 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,603,508.
Claims 30-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,629. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,084,629 claims a similar method for cleaning a floor or a hard surface with a pressed solid composition comprising one or more anionic linear alkyl sulfonate surfactants, such as a linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, one or more nonionic ethoxylated-propoxylated alcohol surfactants or ethoxylated-propoxylated fatty alcohol surfactants, wherein the nonionic surfactant has a ratio of propoxylation to ethoxylation of greater than 1, such as a C12 to C14 fatty alcohol with (EO)3-(PO)6, a solidification agent, an alkalinity source, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is between 6:1 and 9:1, wherein the pH of a use solution of the composition is 7-9, and wherein the surfactant package is free of a short chain alkyl benzene hydrotrope (see claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,629), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 30-49 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,629.
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
June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights