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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 27th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and claim 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 27th, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sivik (US 20200032179 A1), Bridewell (CA 3137577 A1), and as evidenced by Paberit et al (“Cycling Stability of Poly(ethylene glycol) of Six Molecular Weights: Influence of Thermal Conditions for Energy Applications”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 3 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sivik (US 20200032179 A1), Bridewell (CA 3137577 A1), and as evidenced by Cisco (“Polyethylene Glycol 8000”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9-11 and 13-16 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sivik (US 20200032179 A1), Bridewell (CA 3137577 A1), and Fujiwara (JP 2003041471 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 17 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sivik (US 20200032179 A1), Bridewell (CA 3137577 A1), and Kimura (JP 2000314067 A) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mort III (US 20180216038 A1) in view of Ogar (US 4765916 A).
With regard to claims 1, 7 and 21, Mort III discloses a rheology modified detergent particle comprising a surfactant and specific functional rheology modifier (see [0001]). Mort III further discloses polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of 4000-12,000 Da as a rheology modifier (see [0005]) at 0.5-20wt% (see [0012]). Mort III further discloses the particle may comprise 10-80wt% of detergent builder (see [0025]).
However, Mort III fails to disclose a woven or nonwoven pouch formed of water-soluble fibers, wherein the pouch is configured to dissolve in wash water.
Ogar teaches a water soluble film comprising HBMC/HPMC and at least one PVA layer. Ogar further discloses a pouch comprising a two layer film or a single layer folded over (see Col 9 line 10-13). Ogar further discloses the necessity of a pouch that remains intact during normal wash cycles, but dissolves rapidly in the rinse (see Abstract) and further teaches the film as pH dependent and temperature independent (see Col 2 line 60-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mort III to have a water-soluble pouch constructed of polyvinyl alcohol, as taught by Ogar, for the purpose of producing a pouch that remains intact during normal wash cycles, but dissolves rapidly in the rinse, and is pH dependent, but temperature independent, as disclosed by Ogar.
With regard to claims 2-5, Mort III discloses polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of 4000-12,000 Da as a rheology modifier (see [0005]).
With regard to claim 6, Mort III discloses the rheology modifier as ethylene oxide- propylene oxide- ethylene oxide triblock copolymer (see [0016]).
With regard to claim 8, Mort III discloses the particle size distribution as such that the D50 is greater than about 150 microns to less than 1700 microns (see [0022]).
Claims 9-11, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mort III (US 20180216038 A1), in view of Ogar (US 4765916 A), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, 18-19 and 21 above, and further in view of Fujiwara (JP 2003041471 A).
With regard to claims 9-11, 14-16, and 18-19, Mort III and Ogar disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mort III and Ogar fail to disclose a ratio of the average particle size to the average pore size of greater than 1.6 (claim 9), less than 50 (claim 10), and 6 to 35 (claim 11).
Fujiwara teaches a nonwoven polyvinyl alcohol fabric (Abstract) as packaging materials for detergents (see [0052]). Fujiwara further teaches the fabric to have an average pore size of 1 to 200 microns (see Claim 9) for the purpose of shape and quality stability (see [0046]). Fujiwara further discloses if the average pore size exceeds 200 microns, the nonwoven fabric becomes coarse (see [0046]).
With respect to the ratio of average particle size to average pore size of 1.6 or greater (claim 9), less than 50 (claim 10), and 6 to 35 (claim 11) considering that Mort III discloses the particle size distribution as such that the D50 is greater than about 150 microns to less than 1700 microns as disclosed in [0022] and Fujiwara teaches a pore size in the range of average pore size of 1 to 200 microns (see Claim 9), the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the references (e.g. a particle size of 150 micrometers and a pore size of 25 micrometers; a ratio of 6:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, 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, to utilize the pore size of Fujiwara with the film disclosed by Ogar to produce a texture which is not coarse, as disclosed by Fujiwara.
With regard to claim 13, Mort III and Ogar teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mort III and Ogar are silent as to the air permeability of the pouch.
Fujiwara teaches a nonwoven polyvinyl alcohol fabric (Abstract) as packaging materials for detergents (0052). Fujiwara further teaches an air permeability of that fabric of 1-400 cc/cm2/sec [claim 9] for the purpose of maintaining quality and shape stability (0046). This range of air permeability corresponds to a range of 1.97 to 787.4 ft3/ft2/min, as shown in the formula below.
1
c
m
3
c
m
2
s
e
c
x
1
f
t
3
28316.08
c
m
3
x
929.03
c
m
2
1
f
t
2
x
60
s
e
c
1
m
i
n
=
1.97
f
t
3
f
t
2
/
s
e
c
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the nonwoven polyvinyl alcohol fabric pouch of Ogar to contain the air permeability range as disclosed by Fujiwara for the purpose of maintain shape and quality stability.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mort III (US 20180216038 A1), in view of Ogar (US 4765916 A), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, 18-19 and 21 above, and further in view of Kimura (JP 2000314067 A).
With regard to claim 17, Mort III and Ogar teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mort III and Ogar are silent as to the pouch configured to have a basis weight of about 5 gsm to about 150 gsm.
Kimura teaches a polyvinyl alcohol based nonwoven fabric (Abstract) with a basis weight of 50 g/m2 (0054) as a packaging material for detergents (0043).
Both Ogar and Kimura teach nonwoven polyvinyl alcohol fabrics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pore sizes disclosed by Kimura with the nonwoven polyvinyl alcohol fabric as taught by Ogar as Kimura shows that such pore sizes can be used in nonwoven polyvinyl alcohol based fabrics used in packaging material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Sivik is directed to household care articles that include a water-soluble fibrous structure and one or more particles (see paragraph [0001] of Sivik). This is discussed throughout Sivik, and in particular, paragraph [0024] states, "The fibrous water-soluble unit dose article may comprise a water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, where the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of identical or substantially identical, from a compositional perspective, fibrous elements." This is also shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Sivik, which show a fibrous structure with particles therein. Applicant further argues that claim 1 of the present application has been amended to recite that "the solid formulation excludes fibers." In other words, the presently claimed solid formulation is not a water-soluble fibrous structure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to exclude fibers from a solid formulation in view of Sivik, as the entire purpose of Sivik is to improve fibrous unit doses.
As Sivik is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Sivik are moot.
Further, Mort III discloses a rheology modified detergent particle comprising a surfactant and specific functional rheology modifier (see [0001]). Mort III further discloses polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of 4000-12,000 Da as a rheology modifier (see [0005]) at 0.5-20wt% (see [0012]). Mort III further discloses the particle may comprise 10-80wt% of detergent builder (see [0025]).
However, Mort III fails to disclose a woven or nonwoven pouch formed of water-soluble fibers, wherein the pouch is configured to dissolve in wash water.
Ogar teaches a water soluble film comprising HBMC/HPMC and at least one PVA layer. Ogar further discloses a pouch comprising a two layer film or a single layer folded over (see Col 9 line 10-13). Ogar further discloses the necessity of a pouch that remains intact during normal wash cycles, but dissolves rapidly in the rinse (see Abstract) and further teaches the film as pH dependent and temperature independent (see Col 2 line 60-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mort III to have a water-soluble pouch constructed of polyvinyl alcohol, as taught by Ogar, for the purpose of producing a pouch that remains intact during normal wash cycles, but dissolves rapidly in the rinse, and is pH dependent, but temperature independent, as disclosed by Ogar.
Applicant further argues that Bridewell describes that the particle size of the solid composition for use with their pouch is smaller than the pore size of the nonwoven web (see paragraph [0208]). Applicant further argues that Bridewell describes a "multilayer nonwoven web" as the pouch. As Bridewell is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Bridewell are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights