CTNF 18/891,302 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: With respect to instant claim 13, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “chosen” and insert “selected”. With respect to instant claim 13, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “(INCI Sultaines) as well as the” and insert “and”. With respect to instant claim 14, line 16, it is suggested that Applicant delete “or” and insert “and”. Note that, instant claim 15 has also been objected to due to its dependency on claim 13 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 14 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “alkyl residue”, and the claim also recites “preferably…more preferably… most preferably…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the phrases “preferably…more preferably… most preferably…” as merely exemplary and not read as patentably limitations. 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 EP 3,456,805 . With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘805 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition including a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system includes an anionic surfactant and a co-surfactant, wherein the anionic surfactant includes a mixture of a linear anionic surfactant and a branched anionic surfactant with a defined degree of branching and with the branching predominantly on an unalkoxylated alkyl sulfate surfactant. Such compositions exhibit surprising and unexpected improved sudsing profile, especially when the manual dishwashing is performed in a sink full of water. See Abstract. More specifically, ‘805 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing composition containing from 1% to 60% by weight of the composition of a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant and a co-surfactant. The anionic surfactant has an average alkyl chain length from 12 to 13 carbon atoms and an average degree of branching from 24% to 39%. Preferably, the surfactant system comprises from 60% to 80% by weight of a linear anionic surfactant. The branched anionic surfactant is selected from 90% to 100%, by weight of the total branched anionic surfactant of a branched alkyl sulfate surfactant and from 0% to 10% by weight of the total branched anionic surfactant of a branched alkyl ethoxy sulfate surfactant. Preferably, the branched alkyl sulfate surfactant comprises at least 90%, more preferably 100% by weight of the branched alkyl sulfate surfactant of a branched alkyl sulfate surfactant with the branching on the C2 position. The branching group on the branched anionic surfactant is preferably greater than 75%, more preferably greater than 90%, of the total branched alkyl content, of a C1-C5 alkyl moiety, preferably a C1- C2 alkyl moiety. See paras. 20-38. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of ‘805 clearly teach and suggest C13 alkyl sulfate surfactants having the same characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims. The compositions contain a cosurfactant in amounts from 0.1% to 20% by weight and includes amphoteric surfactant, zwitterionic surfactant, and mixtures thereof. See paras. 40-49. Preferably, the surfactant system contains from 1% to 25% by weight of the surfactant system, of a nonionic surfactant. See para. 50. The weight ratio of the The composition has a pH from about 6 to about 14 and a viscosity of from 100 mPas to 5,000 mPas. See paras. 25-27. Suitable zwitterionic surfactants include betaine surfactants, etc. Suitable betaine surfactant includes alkyl betaines, alkylamidobetaine, amidazoliniumbetaine, sulfobetaine (INCi sultaines) as well as the phosphobetaine and preferably of formula (I) which is the same as recited by instant claim 14. See paras. 44-47. The composition may contain an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent is preferably ethanol, polypropylene glycol, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 72. Additionally, the surfactant system further comprises from 1% to 25% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, preferably an alkyl ethoxylated nonionic surfactant. See para. 50. Specifically, ‘805 teaches a compositions containing 14.35% of a branched alkyl sulfate, having an average degree of branching of 30%; 3.59* C12-C14 dimethyl amine oxide, 0.7% NaCl, 0.7% polypropylene glycol, 2% ethanol, 0.5% sodium citrate, etc., having a pH of 9.02. See para. 80-82. ‘805 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, 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 ‘805 suggest a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims . 07-21-02-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Billiauw et al (US2021/0395643) . The applied reference has a common assignee/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘643 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition including a surfactant system comprising from 5% to 60% by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system comprises at least one alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant. See paras. 5-7. The alkyl sulfate comprises a 2-branched C13 alkyl sulfate in which more than 80%, preferably from 85% to 95% by weight of the 2-branched C13 alkyl sulfate anionic is 2-methyldodecyl sulfate anionic surfactant. See para. 62. The alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant can have a weight average degree of branching of more than 10%, and preferably between 30% and 40%. See para. 65. The composition comprises from 10% to 40% of a cosurfactant and the weight ratio of the alkyl sulfate to the cosurfactant is from 1:1 to 8:1, preferably from 2:1 to 5:1, wherein suitable cosurfactants are zwitterionic surfactants, etc. Suitable zwitterionic surfactants include betaine surfactants, etc. Suitable betaine surfactant includes alkyl betaines, alkylamidobetaine, amidazoliniumbetaine, sulfobetaine (INCi sultaines) as well as the phosphobetaine and preferably of formula (I) which is the same as recited by instant claim 14. See paras. 81-98. The composition may contain a nonionic surfactant at a level of from 1% to 25% by weight and includes alkoxylated nonionic surfactants. See paras. 106-110. The composition may contain an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent is preferably ethanol, polypropylene glycol, etc., and mixtures thereof. See paras. 137-140. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of ‘643 clearly teaches and suggests C13 alkyl sulfate surfactants having the same characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims. The composition has a pH from about 6 to about 14 and a viscosity of from 100 mPas to 5,000 mPas. See paras. 50-52. ‘643 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, 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 ‘643 suggest a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by 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 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,827; claims 1-18 of US Pat. No. 11,884,898; claims 1-19 of US Pat No. 12,037,565; claims 1-15 of US Pat. No. 12,203,052; or claims 1-20 of US 11,987,770 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,827; claims 1-18 of US Pat. No. 11,884,898; claims 1-19 of US Pat No. 12,037,565; claims 1-15 of US Pat. No. 12,203,052; or claims 1-20 of US 11,987,770 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, a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, 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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,827; claims 1-18 of US Pat. No. 11,884,898; claims 1-19 of US Pat No. 12,037,565; claims 1-15 of US Pat. No. 12,203,052; or claims 1-20 of US 11,987,770 suggest a composition containing an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having the specific characteristics and branching profile as recited by the instant claims, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims . 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/June 11, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 11 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 12 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/891,302 Page 13 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights