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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 1/28/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 19-21 and 23 are pending in the application. Claims 4, 12-18 and 22 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, 19, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danneels et al. US 2002/0094942 A1 in view of WEISMAN et al. US 2013/0167305 A1, and further in view of Sunder et al. US 2015/0136636 A1, all previously cited.
With regards to claim 1, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses a shipping container comprising at least one of a box or carton 10 comprising a plurality of water-soluble articles 30, wherein the shipping container further comprises at least one divider 28 to separate the plurality of water-soluble articles within the shipping container, wherein the shipping container is substantially dunnage free, wherein the plurality of water-soluble articles comprise similar replicate articles. (Para. 0003, 0006, 0008 and 0026-0027)
Danneels discloses a plurality of water-soluble articles but it does not specifically disclose the plurality of water-soluble articles comprise a plurality of fibrous elements comprising one or more filament-forming materials and one or more active agents releasable from the plurality of fibrous elements, wherein each of the plurality of articles comprises a plurality of fibrous elements at a basis weight of from 10 g/m2 to 5000 g/m2, wherein the plurality of water-soluble articles comprise one or more particles and wherein at least one of the plurality of water-soluble articles has a density from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.8 g/cm3.
However, WEISMAN teaches that it was known in the art to have a water-soluble article 120 comprise of a plurality of fibrous elements comprising one or more filament-forming materials and one or more active agents releasable from the plurality of fibrous elements (Abstract and Para. 0005), wherein each of the plurality of articles comprises a plurality of fibrous elements at a basis weight of from 150 g/m2 (or less) to 3000 g/m2 (Para. 0093), which falls within the claimed range of 10g/m2 to 5000g/m2, wherein the plurality of water-soluble articles comprise one or more particles and wherein at least one of the plurality of water-soluble articles has a density from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.8 g/cm3 (Para. 0100). (Para. 0092-0093 and 0100)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water-soluble articles in Danneels by providing a plurality of fibrous elements comprising one or more filament-forming materials and one or more active agents, a plurality of fibrous elements at a basis weight of from 10 g/m2 to 5000 g/m2 and the plurality of water-soluble articles has a density from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.8 g/cm3 as taught by WEISMAN since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP2144.05-I.
Danneels does not specifically disclose at least one of the plurality of water-soluble articles has: a width from 1 cm to 11 cm; a length from 1 cm to 20 cm; and a height from 0.01 mm to 50 mm
However, Sunder (Para. 0030-0032) teaches that it was known in the art to have at least one water-soluble article have: a width from 4cm to 7cm (which falls within the claimed range of 1 cm to11 cm) ; a length from 5cm to 8cm (which falls within the claimed range of 1 cm to 20 cm; and a height from 15mm to 45mm (which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 mm to 50 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water-soluble articles in Danneels by having a width from 1cm to 11 cm, a length from 1 cm to 20 cm and a height from 0.01 mm to 50 mm as taught by Sunder for the purposes of providing the accurate size to allow the plurality of articles to fit inside the container, since it has been held that that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05-I.
With regards to claim 2, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses the shipping container 10 comprises an internal volume sized to removably contain the plurality of water-soluble articles 30. (Para. 0029 and 0031)
With regards to claim 5, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses the at least one divider 28 separates the plurality of water-soluble articles 30 into two or more compartments. (Para. 0027)
With regards to claim 6, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses the shipping container 10 further comprises one or more overwraps 38. (Para. 0031)
With regards to claim 7, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses the shipping container is void of an overwrap. (Para. 0032 and 0035, recites it may not be needed or desired to seal or prevent exposure of the article)
With regards to claim 8, Danneels discloses the shipping container further comprises a barrier selected from the group consisting of: a liquid barrier (moisture barrier). (Para. 0033)
With regards to claim 9, Danneels discloses the shipping container is void of a water impermeable barrier and a water vapor resistant barrier. (Para. 0032, 0033 and 0035, recites it may not be needed or desired to seal or prevent exposure of the article)
With regards to claim 10, Danneels discloses the shipping container 10 further comprises a protective coating. (Para. 0034)
With regards to claim 11, Danneels discloses the shipping container is void of a protective coating. (Para. 0034, water resistant coating, is not required)
With regards to claim 19, Danneels does not specifically disclose the shipping container comprises a box having one or more of the following dimensions: a width of 6 inches or less, a length of 10 inches or less, a height of 1.75 inches or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the box have the above dimensions since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device would not be patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04.
With regards to claim 21, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses the plurality of water-soluble articles 30 comprises at least 2 water-soluble articles to 144 water-soluble articles.
With regards to claim 23, Danneels (Fig. 1) discloses the plurality of water-soluble articles 30 are present in the shipping container in the form of one or more stacks.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danneels et al. US 2002/0094942 A1 in view of WEISMAN et al. US 2013/0167305 A1, further in view of Sunder et al. US 2015/0136636 A1, and further in view of Sunder et al. US 2014/0238889 A1, all previously cited.
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Danneels in WEISMAN and Sunder ‘636 discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a ratio of a volume of the plurality of water-soluble articles to the internal volume of the shipping container is 0.8 or greater.
However, Sunder ‘889 (Para. 0059) teaches it was known in the art to have a container 1 that holds a plurality of water-soluble articles 2 have a ratio of a volume of the plurality of water-soluble articles to the internal volume of the shipping container is 1 to 3.4 (which falls within the claimed range of 0.8 or greater). (Para. 0009, 0014, 0059 and 0129)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shipping container in Danneels by having it have a ratio of a volume of the plurality of water-soluble articles to the internal volume of the shipping container 0.8 or greater as taught by Sunder ‘889 for the purposes providing an adequate flow and diffusion of the scent in the internal container volume, since it has been held that that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05-I.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danneels et al. US 2002/0094942 A1 in view of WEISMAN et al. US 2013/0167305 A1, previously cited, further in view of Sunder et al. US 2015/0136636 A1, previously cited and further in view of Moore et al. US 2016/0122117 A1.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Danneels in WEISMAN and Sunder discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the shipping container further comprises a water scavenging material.
However, Moore teaches that it was known in the art to have a container 1 comprise of a water scavenging material 40. (Para. 0026 and 0046)
Danneels discloses the use of seals to provide moisture barriers for the articles in the container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shipping container in Danneels by providing a water scavenging material as taught by Moore for the purposes removing moisture from the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues “there is no motivation in Danneels to combine Danneels with Weisman other than that of the Present Invention” due to the water soluble articles of Danneels not disclosing "fiber" or "fibrous" structure properties, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Danneels (para. 0003) and Weisman (para. 0002-0004, 0086 and 0110) discloses water soluble articles such as detergent compositions, used as cleaning articles. Weisman (para. 0008 and 0030) provides further details of the fibrous water soluble article and (para. 0110) recites the articles benefits over the prior art for example “the fibrous structure can sufficiently dissolve and release the active agent. In addition, such fibrous structures are non-adhesive to any articles being washed (e.g., clothes), or washing machine surfaces, and such fibrous structures will not block the drainage unit of the washing machines.” Weisman (para. 0035) also recites the structures also benefit the environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/ROBERT J HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights