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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camire et al, US 2018/0216033.
Camire et al, US 2018/0216033, discloses a stable unit dose composition having a high water content and a water activity of 0.65 to 0.95 (see abstract and paragraph 63). It is further taught by Camire et al that the composition contains 40-70% by weight of a structured surfactant system (see paragraph 20), that the surfactant system contains an anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant (see paragraph 27), that suitable surfactants include an alcohol ethoxysulfate and an alcohol ethoxylate, wherein a linear alkyl benzene sulfonate anionic surfactant is optional (see paragraphs 29-31), that the composition contains 20-60% by weight of water (see paragraph 75), that suitable alcohol ethoxylates have the formula depicted in formula (II), wherein the alcohol ethoxylate accounts for 30-70% by weight of the total surfactant present in the composition (see paragraphs 90-99), that the composition contains 1-4% by weight of a fatty acid (see paragraphs 100-104), 1-15% by weight of a buffer (see paragraph 110), that the composition contains 0.01-50% by weight of a binding agent, such as a mixture of a solvent, such as glycerol, and a saccharide, such as glucosamine (see paragraphs 117-121), sodium bicarbonate and citrates (see paragraph 125), enzymes, such as protease, amylase, and mannanase (see paragraph 131 and Table 4), and citric acid (see Table 1), wherein the composition is used in a process to wash laundry (see paragraphs 154-157) and wherein the composition has a pH of 7.2-8.3 (see paragraph 171), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-8 and Tables 1-6B.
Although Camire et al generally discloses a unit dose composition containing 0.01-50% by weight of a binding agent, such as a mixture of a solvent, such as glycerol, and a saccharide, such as glucosamine, the reference does not require such unit dose compositions containing these components with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a unit dose composition, as taught by Camire et al, which contained 0.01-50% by weight of a binding agent, such as a mixture of a solvent, such as glycerol, and a saccharide, such as glucosamine, because such unit dose compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Camire et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a unit dose composition containing 0.01-50% by weight of a binding agent, such as a mixture of a solvent, such as glycerol, and a saccharide, such as glucosamine, is expressly suggested by the Camire et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/970,753 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/970,753 claims a similar unit dose detergent product comprising 0.025-2% by weight of a sugar amine, such as glucosamine HCl, 15-65% by weight of a non-aqueous solvent, such as glycerin, 15-55% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, such as an alcohol ethoxylate, water, a fatty acid, a chelating agent, enzymes, such as protease, amylase, and mannanase, sodium hydroxide, and adjunct ingredients, wherein the detergent product has a water activity of 0.5-0.7, a pH of 6.5-10, and is used in a process to wash laundry (see claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/970,753), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-20 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/970,753.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zmiric et al, EP 4,245,293, discloses compositions comprising a sugar amine (see abstract and paragraph 10).
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
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights