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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-9, 11-16, 21 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulstone t al in view of Dreja et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites “the thermoplastic medium is not water soluble”; this renders the claim indefinite as there found no support for “the thermoplastic medium is not water soluble”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulston et al (WO Patent 2018/037209 (already of record)) in view of Dreja et al (US Patent Application 2012/0165239 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11-16, Coulston et al teaches suppression of malodor with a composition comprising 1 wt% cucurbiturils and 0.35wt% of polymer (Pg. 27, Line 29-Pg. 28, Lines 13). Coulston et al further teaches cucurbituril such as CB[5], CB[6], CB[7], and CB[8] in the amount of 0.1-99wt% (Pg. 6, Line 18-Pg. 7, Line 30). Coulston et al further teaches the combination of cucurbiturils may be greater than 75wt% (Pg. 7, Lines 24-26). Coulston et al further teaches 12-17wt% of CB[5], 45-50wt% of CB[6], 22-27wt% of CB[7], 12-17wt% of CB[8] (Pg. 7, Lines 32-35). Coulston et al further teaches polymers such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Pg. 15, Line 20-Pg. 17, Line 15). Coulston et al further teaches the perfume oil can be added to the composition (Pg. 20, Line 35-Pg. 21, Line 3). Coulston et al further teaches the composition is applied to the source of malodor by spraying on textiles, pads, diapers (which satisfies claimed solid form and form of a film or coating) (Pg. 20, Line 24-Pg. 21, Line 19). Coulston et al further teaches the consumer product comprising the suspension may be in the form of granulates, tablets or single dose units (which satisfies claimed solid form and satisfies the composition in the form of particles) (Pg. 21, Lines 8-22). However, Coulston et al fails to specifically disclose a solid composition at temperatures of at least 100C and the D90 of the particles not being larger than the film thickness.
In the same field of endeavor, Dreja et al teaches a solid scent imparting composition as a coating or tablet comprising a water-soluble polymer, malodor absorbing compound and a perfume (Abstract, Paragraph 121). Dreja et al further teaches the water-soluble polymer comprising a polymer having a melting point, taken to mean the transition of solid to liquid) from 48-300C (which overlaps the claimed range) (Paragraphs 51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a solid composition at a temperature of at least 100C in Coulston et al in view of Dreja et al in order to provide a solid scent imparting composition with a water-soluble polymer having a melting point up to 300C and Coulston et al teaches a suspension for the suppression of malodor which can be in form of coatings, granules and tablets and provided into other consumer products. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected the D90 of the particles not being larger than the film thickness in Coulston et al in view of Dreja et al as it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan that particle size of the cucurbiturils are less than the film thickness as the particles of the cucurbiturils and the polymers with other additives make up the composition/film.
Claims 1-9, 11-16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulston et al (WO Patent 2018/037209 (already of record)) in view of McAlpin et al (US Patent Application 2022/0169839).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11-16, 21, Coulston et al teaches suppression of malodor with a composition comprising 1 wt% cucurbiturils and 0.35wt% of polymer (Pg. 27, Line 29-Pg. 28, Lines 13). Coulston et al further teaches cucurbituril such as CB[5], CB[6], CB[7], and CB[8] in the amount of 0.1-99wt% (Pg. 6, Line 18-Pg. 7, Line 30). Coulston et al further teaches the combination of cucurbiturils may be greater than 75wt% (Pg. 7, Lines 24-26). Coulston et al further teaches 12-17wt% of CB[5], 45-50wt% of CB[6], 22-27wt% of CB[7], 12-17wt% of CB[8] (Pg. 7, Lines 32-35). Coulston et al further teaches polymers such as polyacrylic, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohols, polyoxyalkylene, polysiloxane, polyvinyl pyrrolidone and polyurea polyurethane (Pg. 15, Line 20-Pg. 17, Line 15). Coulston et al further teaches the perfume oil can be added to the composition (Pg. 20, Line 35-Pg. 21, Line 3). Coulston et al further teaches the composition is applied to the source of malodor by spraying on textiles, pads, diapers (which satisfies claimed solid form and form of a film or coating) (Pg. 20, Line 24-Pg. 21, Line 19). Coulston et al further teaches the consumer product comprising the suspension may be in the form of granulates, tablets or single dose units (which satisfies claimed solid form and satisfies the composition in the form of particles) (Pg. 21, Lines 8-22). However, Coulston et al fails to specifically disclose a solid composition at temperatures of at least 100C and the D90 of the particles not being larger than the film thickness.
In the same field of endeavor, McAlpin et al teaches an odor suppression composition comprising an olefin-based polymer and an odor suppressant (Abstract). McAlpin et al further teaches an olefin-based polymer including an ethylene or propylene polymer or copolymer (Paragraph 45) including low density polyethylene, ultra-low density polyethylene and high density polyethylene (Paragraph 14). McAlpin et al further teaches from 85-99.85wt% of the polymer in the composition having melting points greater than 100C (Paragraphs 51, 56, 75, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a solid composition at a temperature of at least 100C in Coulston et al in view of McAlpin et al in order to provide a solid odor/malodor suppression composition with a polymer having a melting point up to 130C and Coulston et al teaches a suspension for the suppression of malodor which can be in form of coatings, granules and tablets and provided into other consumer products. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected the D90 of the particles not being larger than the film thickness in Coulston et al in view of McAlpin et al as it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan that particle size of the cucurbiturils are less than the film thickness as the particles of the cucurbiturils and the polymers with other additives make up the composition/film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Coulston et al in view of Dreja et al, Applicant argues Dreja et al requires water-soluble polymers and the polymers in claim 1 are not water-soluble. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with above argument as polyvinyl pyrrolidone and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose are both water-soluble.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights