CTNF 18/894,029 CTNF 76173 DETAILED ACTION 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. Specification The first line of the specification should be amended to recite that “This application is a continuation of U.S. Serial Number 17/884,606, filed on August 10, 2022, now U.S. Patent Number 12,129,453.”. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The examiner construes the limitation “substantially free of cationic surfactants” that is recited in claim 16 to mean that “the composition contains less than 1% by weight of cationic surfactants”, as defined by applicant on page 5, lines 6-12 of the instant specification. 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 Claims 10-13 are 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of not more than about 1200”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 1, from which claim 10 depends from, has a lower limit value P of 50, and the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of not more than about 1200” includes values below 50. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of not more than about 1000”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 1, from which claim 11 depends from, has a lower limit value P of 50, and the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of not more than about 1000” includes values below 50. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of at least about 100”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 1, from which claim 12 depends from, has an upper limit value P of 1500, and the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of at least about 100” includes values above 1500. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of at least about 120”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 1, from which claim 13 depends from, has an upper limit value P of 1500, and the limitation “wherein the graft polymer has value P of at least about 120” includes values above 1500. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 and 12-16 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 Wang et al, US 20170081613 . Wang et al, US 20170081613, discloses a cleaning composition comprising 0.01-20% by weight of an amphiphilic graft polymer that contains a polyalkylene oxide backbone with one or more side chains of a vinyl ester component (see abstract and paragraph 8). It is further taught by Wang et al that suitable polyalkylene oxide backbones include polyethylene oxide backbones that have a number average molecular weight (M n ) from 1,000-10,000 (see paragraph 29), that the polyethylene oxide backbone may be in free form or may also be capped at one or both end groups, wherein preferred end groups include C 1-25 alkyl groups (see paragraphs 30-31), that the polyethylene oxide backbone is present in an amount of 15-70% by weight of the total weight of the graft copolymer (see paragraphs 34-35), that the vinyl ester side chains are present in an amount of 30-85% by weight of the total weight of the graft copolymer (see paragraph 38), that a preferred vinyl ester side chain is polyvinyl acetate (see paragraph 37), that the graft copolymer has a polydispersity value (M w / M n ) of less than or equal to 3 (see paragraph 40), that the cleaning composition is in solid, liquid or unit dose form (see paragraphs 112-113), and that the cleaning composition further contains 1-80% by weight of a surfactant (see paragraph 117), and adjunct ingredients, such as builders (see paragraphs 129-130), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Tables 1-5. It is further noted by the examiner that a graft polymer having a number average molecular weight of 3,000 (see paragraph 29 of Wang et al) and a percentage of polymeric side chains of 0.4 (see paragraph 38 of Wang et al), would result in a product of formula P value of 1200, per the requirements of the instant claims. Furthermore, although Wang et al is silent with respect to the biodegradability of their graft polymer, the examiner asserts that the graft polymers disclosed in Wang et al would inherently meet the biodegradability requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, instant claims 1-10 and 12-16 are anticipated by Wang et al, US 20170081613. 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 . 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 9-13 and 15-16 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 Fossum et al, US 2019/0390142 . Fossum et al, US 2019/0390142, discloses a fabric care composition comprising a graft copolymer of a polyalkylene oxide, such as polyethylene oxide, N- vinylpyrrolidone and a vinyl ester, such as vinyl acetate (see abstract). It is further taught by Fossum et al that the polyalkylene oxide has a number average molecular weight of 1,000-20,000 (see paragraph 8), that the weight ratio of polyalkylene oxide to N-vinylpyrrolidone is 1.0:0.1 to 1:2, that the weight ratio of N-vinylpyrrolidone to vinyl acetate is 1.0:0.1 to 1:5, and that the weight ratio of polyalkylene oxide to vinyl acetate is 1.0:0.1 to 1:5 (see paragraph 32), that the polyalkylene oxides may be in free form with OH end groups, or may be capped at one or both ends with C 1-25 alkyl groups (see paragraph 37), that the graft polymers have a polydispersity value (M w / M n ) of less than or equal to 3 (see paragraph 44), that the side chains of the graft copolymers are hydrolyzed up to 60 mole percent (see paragraph 53), that the fabric care composition contains 1-70% by weight of a surfactant (see paragraphs 59-65), and adjunct ingredients, such as enzymes (see paragraph 70), wherein the fabric care composition is in liquid, solid or encapsulated form (see paragraphs 92-95), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Graft Copolymer Examples 1A-1M. Since Fossum et al teaches a number average molecular weight of the graft copolymer of 1,000 (see paragraph 8), a polymeric side chain substitution of 0.41 in Example 1A would result in a value P of 410. Furthermore, although Fossum et al is silent with respect to the biodegradability of their graft polymer, the examiner asserts that the graft polymers disclosed in Fossum et al would inherently meet the biodegradability requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, instant claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-16 are anticipated by Fossum et al, US 2019/0390142. 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 . 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-16 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 Schutz et al, US 2011/0259365 . Schutz et al, US 2011/0259365, discloses a liquid detergent composition comprising an amphiphilic graft copolymer (see abstract). It is further taught by Schutz et al that the liquid detergent composition contains 0.01-5% by weight of the amphiphilic graft copolymer (see paragraph 25), that the amphiphilic graft copolymer contains 5-70% by weight of a hydrophilic backbone, such as a polyethylene oxide backbone that has a weight average molecular weight of 400-9,000 g/mol (see paragraph 26), that the amphiphilic graft copolymer contains hydrophobic side chains, such as vinyl acetate, wherein the vinyl acetate constitutes 90-100% by weight of all hydrophobic side chains (see paragraph 27), that the amphiphilic graft copolymer contains 20-70% by weight of the polyalkylene oxide graft base and 30-80% by weight of the vinyl ester side chains (see paragraphs 39-42), that the polydispersity of the polyalkylene oxide graft base is 1.5 (resulting in a number average molecular weight range of 267-6000; see paragraph 44), that the polyalkylene oxides may be in free form with OH end groups, or may be capped at one or both ends with C 1-25 alkyl groups (see paragraph 45), that the liquid detergent composition further contains 1-50% by weight of surfactants (see paragraph 108), and adjunct ingredients, such as alkoxylated polyethyleneimine polymers (see paragraph 135), and enzymes (see paragraph 183), wherein 40% of the vinyl acetate side chains may be hydrolyzed in the amphiphilic copolymer (see paragraph 187), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Paragraphs 185-225. Since Schutz et al teaches a number average molecular weight of the graft copolymer of 267-6000, the 60% vinyl acetate side chain substitution in the Example in Paragraph 186 would result in a value P of 160.2 to 3,600. Furthermore, although Schutz et al is silent with respect to the biodegradability of their graft polymer, the examiner asserts that the graft polymers disclosed in Schutz et al would inherently meet the biodegradability requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, instant claims 1-16 are anticipated by Schutz et al, US 2011/0259365. 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 . 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 and 12-16 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 Kud et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,746,456 . Kud et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,746,456, discloses detergents that contain a graft copolymer obtainable by grafting polyalkylene oxides having a number average molecular weight of 2,000 with vinyl acetate in a weight ratio of from 1:0.2 to 1:10, wherein up to 15% of the acetate groups may be hydrolyzed (see abstract). It is further taught by Kud et al that that suitable polyalkylene oxides include ethylene oxide (see col. 1, lines 55-67), and that the detergent compositions further contain surfactants and enzymes (see col. 3, lines 14-33), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Graft Copolymer Examples 1-13 in Table 1, especially Graft Copolymer Example 11 that has a product of formula P value of 1500. Furthermore, although Kud et al is silent with respect to the biodegradability of their graft polymer, the examiner asserts that the graft polymers disclosed in Kud et al would inherently meet the biodegradability requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, instant claims 1-9 and 12-16 are anticipated by Kud et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,746,456. 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 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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,453 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,129,453 claims a similar detergent composition comprising a detersive surfactant, adjunct materials, such as enzymes, and a graft polymer comprising 20-95% of a polymer backbone of ethylene oxide and 5-80% by weight of the polymer of vinyl acetate side chains, wherein the polymer is free of vinyl pyrrolidone, is hydrolyzed, has a number average molecular weight of the polymer backbone of 500-5,000, and has a value P of 50-300 (see claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,453), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-16 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,453 . 08-35 AIA Claim s 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 20-23, 25-26, 29, 32-33 and 35-38 of copending Application No. 18/682,592 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/682,592 claims a similar cleaning composition comprising a detersive surfactant, an enzyme, and a graft polymer comprising 20-95% of a polymer backbone of ethylene oxide and 5-80% by weight of the polymer of vinyl acetate side chains, wherein the polymer is free of vinyl pyrrolidone, has a number average molecular weight of the polymer backbone of 500-5,000, and has a value P of 50-1500 (see claims 20-23, 25-26, 29, 32-33 and 35-38 of copending Application No. 18/682,592), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-16 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 20-23, 25-26, 29, 32-33 and 35-38 of copending Application No. 18/682,592 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 May 21, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 11 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 12 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 13 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/894,029 Page 14 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights