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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Clam 1 is amended in the response filed 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants urge that Cooley nor Somerville-Roberts teach the claim 1 amendment to a plurality of layers in their packaging.
Upon careful consideration of the claim 1 as amended, the combination rejection is maintained because Cooley et al. teach the watercapsule limitation of claim 1 specifically teaching a polyvinylalcohol film layer separating a liquid compartment from the other ingredients (see col.3,ln.1-5) and is properly combined with Somerville-Roberts et al. teaching it is commonly known to package watercapsules in a laminate which by definition is multiple layers fixed together. Cooley is appropriately combined with Somerville-Roberts et al. because col.10.ln.49-60 teach one of ordinary skill to a package comprising both the cellulosic pulp layer, and a polyester layer. See Somerville-Roberts et al. col.10.ln.49-60 copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
Accordingly, the teachings of Cooley et al. and Somerville-Roberts et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a substrate treatment product having the same water soluble capsule in a water soluble film and further packaged in the plurality of layer as required by the amended claims.
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 1-11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (US 10,059,912 B2) in view of Somerville Roberts et al. (US 10,323,220 B2).
Cooley et al. (US 10,059,912 B2) teach a substrate treatment product comprising a multi-compartment water-soluble capsule thermoformed from two sheets of water-soluble film, the capsule comprising a least two compartments with a different part of a detergent composition in each compartment, the two sheets of film being sealed together to form seal areas around each compartment. See abstract.
Claim 1 limitation to at least one layer of a polymeric material selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid, polyhydroxyalkanoate, a polyester, polyvinyl alcohol, polybutylenadipate terephthalate, a cellulose, a starch, a sugar cane and mixtures thereof, is met by Cooley et al. establishing that multi- compartment water - soluble detergent capsules are made with water - soluble film of typically polyvinyl alcohol. See col.1,ln.10-15.
Claim 1 imitation to the package containing (i) a receptacle containing 10 or more of said water soluble capsules, is encompassed by Cooley et al. teaching their thermoforming process uses a rotary drum on which the forming cavities are mounted (see col. 7,ln.61-col.8,ln.5) and a skilled person will appreciate how this would be adapted without inventive effort to use a linear array process. See also FIG . 4 shows a plurality (9 instead of the claimed 10) of such cavity sections arranged in a rectangular array 30 on the outside of a rotary cylindrical drum with a horizontal axis 31. FIG. 5 shows the rotary cylindrical drum 40 from the side. See col.12,ln50-55.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein each water-soluble capsule comprises a substrate treatment composition within a sealed compartment which is filled to at least 60% (required in claim 1) is met by col.13,ln.16 teaches aiming fill volume 64-75%.
Claim 1 limitation to be filled to at least 60% of the volume of the compartment of the water-soluble capsule, is met by Cooley et al. of the multi compartment capsule will be filled and by filled it is meant that the compartment contains liquid or solid or powder and a gas bubble. The presence of the gas bubble provides some protection from compression of the compartment due to its compressibility. See col.8,ln.35-60 and col.13,ln.29-32 teaching Fill volume vs. brimful volume is aimed at a minimum of 80 % ie. for a 28 ml liquid 30 seconds) the capsule was completely gone with no film, fill the cavity volume is thus at most 35 ml.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the water soluble capsule comprises a water soluble film selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol, a modified polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, carboxymethyicellulose and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is met by Cooley et al. establishing that their multi- compartment water - soluble detergent capsules are made with water - soluble film of typically polyvinyl alcohol. See col.1,ln.10-15.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the substrate treatment composition has a viscosity in the range 200 mPa.s — 2000 mPa.s at 25°C at a shear rate of 21 sec, is met by Cooley et al. teaching Preferred liquids have a viscosity in the range 100 to 1000 cP. See col.8,ln.55. And which range meets the claim 2 limitation wherein the substrate treatment composition has a viscosity in the range 250 mPas — 1000 mPa.s at 25°C at a shear rate of 21 sec. One of ordinary skill understands 1 centipoise is equivalent to 1 millipascal-second.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the water content of the substrate treatment composition is in the range 0.01 — 15%wt. is taught in col.8,ln.55-60 teaching a low water content of less than 10 wt % ie. 0.5 wt.%-9 wt.% of water.
Cooley et al. teach a substrate treatment product comprising a multi-compartment water-soluble capsule thermoformed from two sheets of water-soluble film, the capsule comprising a least two compartments with a different part of a detergent composition in each compartment, the two sheets of film being sealed together to form seal areas around each compartment. This teaching in the abstract reads upon the claim 4 limitation to wherein the capsule further comprises an internal seal which partitions the capsule to provide said at least two compartments. Also, the abstract and figure 1 meets the limitation of claim 7, wherein the capsule is thermoformed.
Cooley et al. is silent as to the packaging of their commercial product and do not teach the package containing (ii) a child resistant closure mechanism as also required by claim 1.
In the analogous art, of packaging laundry detergent Somerville Roberts et al. (US 10,323,220 B2) teach commonly known packaging material include laminates. See col.10,ln.38-55. One of ordinary skill understands the term ‘laminate’ by definition is made of layers fixed together. See the attached google dictionary of laminate - a overlay (a flat surface, especially paper) with a layer of plastic or some other protective material. Somerville Roberts et al. also teach the package may be made from cellulose pulp materials and polyethylene terephthalate polyester material. See col.10,ln.52-55. Somerville Roberts et al. also teach the claimed child resistant closure mechanism is commonly used in this art of packaging. See col.10, ln.45-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to package the multicompartment water soluble detergent capsules of Cooley et al. within the claimed package and containing a child resistant closure mechanism as required by claim 1 because Somerville Roberts et al. teach laminate packaging material made from multiple layers including the claimed cellulose pulp materials and polyethylene terephthalate polyester and having child resistant closure mechanism are commonly known suitable materials for detergent packaging. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Cooley with that of Somerville Roberts et al. since both are in the analogous art of packaging watersoluble capsule detergent.
Claim 2 limitation to wherein the substrate treatment composition has a viscosity in the range 200 mPa.s — 2000 mPa.s at 25°C at a shear rate of 21 sec, is met by Cooley et al. teaching Preferred liquids have a viscosity in the range 100 to 1000 cP. See col.8,ln.55. And which range meets the claim 2 limitation wherein the substrate treatment composition has a viscosity in the range 250 mPas — 1000 mPa.s at 25°C at a shear rate of 21 sec. as one of ordinary skill understands 1 centipoise is equivalent to 1 millipascal-second.
Claim 3 limitation to be filled to at least 90% of the volume of the compartment of the water-soluble capsule, is met by Cooley et al. of the multi compartment capsule will be filled and by filled it is meant that the compartment contains liquid or solid or powder and a gas bubble. The presence of the gas bubble provides some protection from compression of the compartment due to its compressibility. See col.8,ln.35-60 and col.13,ln.29-32 teaching Fill volume vs. brimful volume is aimed at a minimum of 80 % ie. for a 28 ml liquid 30 seconds) the capsule was completely gone with no film, fill the cavity volume is thus at most 35 ml.
With respect to claim 4, Cooley et al. teach a substrate treatment product comprising a multi-compartment water-soluble capsule thermoformed from two sheets of water-soluble film, the capsule comprising a least two compartments with a different part of a detergent composition in each compartment, the two sheets of film being sealed together to form seal areas around each compartment. This teaching in the abstract reads upon the claim 4 limitation to wherein the capsule further comprises an internal seal which partitions the capsule to provide said at least two compartments. Also, the abstract and figure 1.
Claim 5 limitation to wherein the capsule film is from 40 to 150 micrometer thick is taught by Cooley et al. teaching in col.7,ln.50-55, their capsule film has average thickness of from 30 to 90 micrometer.
Claim 6 limitation to wherein the capsule comprises a bittering agent is taught by Cooley et al. col.10,ln.11 guiding one of ordinary skill to include citrates.
Cooley et al. teach a substrate treatment product comprising a multi-compartment water-soluble capsule thermoformed from two sheets of water-soluble film, the capsule comprising a least two compartments with a different part of a detergent composition in each compartment, the two sheets of film being sealed together to form seal areas around each compartment. This teaching in the abstract reads upon the claim 4 limitation to wherein the capsule further comprises an internal seal which partitions the capsule to provide said at least two compartments. The abstract and figure 1 meets the limitation of claim 7, wherein the capsule is thermoformed.
The enzymes of claim 8 and the bleach of claim 9 and polymeric thickener of claim 10 is taught in the ingredients list in col.2,ln.40-45 teaching percarbonate bleach, polyacrylate polymer thickener, and protease and amylase enzyme mix.
Claim 11 limitation to wherein the receptacle and closure each incorporate at least two locking members, and the package is closed by the locking of multiple pairs of locking members is met by Cooley et al. teaching in col.2,ln.55-60 their seal assembly has two thermoformed “ capsules ” to form a multi - compartment capsule whereby a first “ capsule ” having at least two smaller liquid compartments joined together with foldable flat seals is then used to seal a larger compartment.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761