CTNF 18/828,506 CTNF 72268 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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivik et al (US2021/0395648) in view of Oh et al (US2005/0256016) . With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Sivik et al teach laundry care or dish care composition can include a polyalpha-1,6-glucan derivative, wherein the poly alpha-1,6-glucan derivative includes:(i) a poly alpha-1,6-glucan backbone of glucose monomer units, wherein greater than or equal to 40% of the glucose monomer units are linked via alpha-1,6 glycosidic linkages, and optionally at least 5% of the backbone glucose monomer units have branches via alpha-1,2 and/or alpha-1,3 glycosidic linkages; and (ii) at least one hydrophobic organic group linked to the poly alpha-1,6-glucan backbone through an ether (-0-) linkage moiety; wherein, the poly alpha-1,6-glucan backbone has a weight average degree of polymerization of at least 5; wherein, the poly alpha-1,6-glucan derivative has a degree of substitution of ether linkage moiety of from 0.20 to 1.00; wherein the poly alpha-1,6-glucan derivative is substantially free from hydrophilic substitution. See Abstract. Note that, poly alpha-1,6-glucan polymers as taught by Sivik et al are the same as the preferred sustainable polymers listed on page 11, para. 42 of the instant specification. The poly alpha-1,6-glucan derivatives disclosed herein can be comprised in a personal care product, pharmaceutical product, household product, or industrial product. See para. 64. The composition can be in the form of a liquid, a gel, a powder, a hydrocolloid, an aqueous solution, a granule, a tablet, a capsule, a single compartment sachet, a multi-compartment sachet, a single compartment pouch, or a multi-compartment pouch. See para. 122. A liquid detergent composition may be aqueous typically containing up to about 70% by weight of water and 0% to about 30% by weight of organic solvent. It may also be in the form of a compact gel type containing less than or equal to 30% by weight water. See para. 129. A fabric care, a laundry care, or a dish care composition can comprise in the range of 0.01 to 99 percent by weight of the poly alpha-I,6-glucan derivative, based on the total weight of the composition. The composition may preferably comprise 0.1 to 10% or 0.1 to 9% or 0.5 to 8% or 1 to 7% or 1 to 6% or 1 to 5% or 1to 4% or 1 to 3% or 5 to 10% or 10 to 15% or 15 to 20% or 20 to 25% or 25 to 30% or 30 to 35% or 35 to 40% or 40 to 45% or 45 to 50% or 50 to 55% or 55 to 60% or 60 to 65% or 65 to 70% or 70 to 75% or 75 to 80% or 80 to 85% or 85to 90% or 90 to 95% or 95 to 99% by weight of the poly alpha-1,6-glucan derivative, wherein the percentages by weight are based on the total weight of the composition. See para. 130. The composition can further comprise at least one of a surfactant, an enzyme, a detergent builder, a complexing agent, a polymer, a soil release polymer, a surfactancy boosting polymer, a bleaching agent, a bleach activator, a bleaching catalyst, a fabric conditioner, a clay, a foam booster, a suds suppressor, an anti-corrosion agent, a soil suspending agent, an anti-soil re-deposition agent, a dye, a bactericide, a tarnish inhibitor, an optical brightener, a perfume, a saturated or unsaturated fatty acid, a dye transfer inhibiting agent, a chelating agent, a hueing dye, a calcium cation, a magnesium cation, a visual signaling ingredient, an anti-foam, a structurant, a thickener, an anti-caking agent, a starch, sand, a gelling agents, or any combination thereof. See para. 131. The composition can comprise one or more enzymes, each enzyme present from about 0.00001 % to about 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition. In some embodiments, the composition can also comprise each enzyme at a level of about 0.0001 % to about 10%, about 0.001 % to about 5%, about 0.001 % to about 2% or about 0.005% to about 0.5% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition. See para. 133. The surfactant is selected from nonionic surfactants, anionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, ampholytic surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, semi-polar nonionic surfactants and mixtures thereof. The surfactant may be petroleum-derived (also referred to as synthetic) or non-petroleum-derived (also referred to as natural). In some embodiments, the surfactant is present at a level of from about 0.1 % to about 60%. See para. 143. The composition may contain a builder such as nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTMPA), etc., in amounts from about 1% to about 60% by weight. See para. 145. Suitable dye transfer inhibiting agents include MGDA, DTPA, HEIDA, etc., which may be used in amounts from 0.0001 to about 10% by weight. See para.148. Chelating agents may be used in amounts from 0.1% to 15% by weight. See para.146. Note that, Sivik et al exemplify compositions containing, for example, 0.8% by weight of a C12-C18 fatty acid, 1.55% by weight of citric acid, etc. See para. 200. The pH of the detergent composition can be neutral or alkaline and range from 7.0 to 11.0. See para. 153. Sivik et al do not teach the use of a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme or a unit dose pouch composition, wherein the composition contains a surfactant, a sustainable polymer, an amine source, a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Oh et al teaches detergent compositions comprising a carbohydrate oxidase enzyme and a bleaching catalyst, for effective removal of highly coloured Stains and Soils such as carotenoids, and/or lignin-comprising Stains. See Abstract and paras. 9-11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme in composition taught by Sivik et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Oh et al teach that the use of a carbohydrate oxidase enzyme and a bleaching catalyst in a similar composition provides effective removal of highly coloured stains and soils such as carotenoids, and/or lignin-comprising stains in a similar composition and further, such properties would be desirable in the compositions taught by Sivik et al and Sivik et al teach the use of enzymes and bleach catalysts in general. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a unit dose pouch composition, wherein the composition contains a surfactant, a sustainable polymer, an amine source, a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Sivik et al in view of Oh et al suggest a unit dose pouch composition, wherein the composition contains a surfactant, a sustainable polymer, an amine source, a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims . 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. 08-35 Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/828617 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-13 of 18/828617 encompass the material limitations of the instant claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a unit dose pouch composition, wherein the composition contains a surfactant, a sustainable polymer, an amine source, a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because claims 1-13 of 18/828617 suggest a unit dose pouch composition, wherein the composition contains a surfactant, a sustainable polymer, an amine source, a Maillard reaction inhibiting enzyme, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above . Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST. 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. /GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 /G.R.D/May 20, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/828,506 Page 11 Art Unit: 1761
