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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on April 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, and 17-18 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 12, 14-19, and 20 under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Friedrich (WO 2017180888 A1) and Haetzelt (DE 102019111837 A1), evidenced by Stewart (“Propylene Glycol”) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 6 and claim 13 under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Friedrich (WO 2017180888 A1), Haetzelt (DE 102019111837 A1), and Brooker (WO 2015148777 A1) is maintained.
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.
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, 4, 7-8, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (WO 2017180888 A1) and further in view of Haetzelt (DE 102019111837 A1), as evidenced by Stewart (“Propylene Glycol”).
With regard to claim 1, 4, 7-8, 11, 14, 16-17, and 19, Friedrich discloses a pouch composed of water-soluble film and a household care product comprising an organic solvent (see Abstract). Further, Friedrich discloses non-limiting examples of liquid compositions including detergents, fabric enhancers, and laundry additives (see page 4 paragraph 4). Friedrich further teaches a laundry composition comprising an organic solvent and a perfume (see page 1 paragraph 2) and the laundry composition may be a liquid, which includes a free-flowing liquid (see page 4 paragraph 4). Friedrich discloses 1-50wt% of an organic solvent (see page 38 line 29-30). Friedrich further discloses suitable organic solvents as low molecular weight glycols having a molecular weight of less than 600 Da (see page 39 line 1-5). Further, Friedrich teaches suitable organic solvents as glycerol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3 propanediol, dipropylene, and polyethylene glycol, which may have a weight average molecular weight of to about 400 Da (see page 39 line 4-7), and mixtures thereof (see page 39 line 7-8). Friedrich further discloses the composition may comprise at least three organic solvents (see page 39 line 14-15), the first of which may be 1,2 propane diol and the second of which may be glycerol (see page 39 line 19).
Friedrich further discloses the first organic solvent as 1,2-propanediol and the second organic solvent as glycerol (see page 39 line 16-19). Friedrich further teaches the ratio of 1,2-propanediol to glycerol as from about 7:1 to about 1:5 (see page 39 line 19-20). Friedrich teaches organic solvents at 1-50wt% (see page 38 line 29-30).
While Friedrich fails to disclose the composition comprising from about 20% by weight to about 30% by weight of the first non-aqueous solvent and from about 8% by weight to about 10% by weight of the second non-aqueous solvent, Friedrich teaches organic solvents at 1-50wt% (see page 38 line 29-30). Friedrich further teaches the ratio of 1,2-propanediol to glycerol as from about 7:1 to about 1:5 (see page 39 line 19-20). A composition comprising 8wt% of 1,2-propanediol and 20wt% of glycerol would correspond to a ratio of 1:2.5. Optimization or even simply varying of the relative amounts within the prior art’s general conditions amounts to routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F,2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05.
Friedrich further discloses at least about 10% by weight of the total organic solvent as an organic solvent having a boiling point above 250°C (see page 40 line 15-17). PEG 400 has a boiling point above 250°C (see Table 1). Given the calculations above, the first and second organic solvent would total 28wt% of the composition. If the maximum weight percentage of organic solvents is 50wt%, this leaves 22wt% remaining. PEG 400 may comprise at least 10wt% of the total organic solvent. This equates to 2.8-22wt% of PEG 400.
However, Friedrich fails to disclose from about 25wt% to about 50wt% by weight of an encapsulated fragrance slurry.
Haetzelt discloses a method for generating a fragrance impression after a drying step (see [0001]). Haetzelt further discloses the use of perfumed microcapsules for the purpose of allowing a fragrance intensity to be perceived that would not be experienced with a pure fragrance (see [0004]). Further, Haetzelt discloses the perfume capsules allow for delayed diffusion of the fragrances across the capsule wall (see [0004]). Haetzelt further discloses microcapsules for use in detergent compositions (see [0073]). Haetzelt further teaches the slurry as 4-50wt% of the composition (see [0065]) and the encapsulated fragrance as 1-50wt% of the slurry (see [0064]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the following reasons. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve delayed diffusion of the fragrances across the capsule wall (see [0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of allowing a fragrance intensity to be perceived that would not be experienced with a pure fragrance (see [0004]) because of the delayed diffusion of the fragrances across the capsule wall. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 15 and claim 20, Friedrich teaches organic solvents as useful to facilitate product stability (see page 38 line 21-23). While Friedrich and Heibel do not teach a fabric treatment unit does product of claim 8 wherein the liquid composition does not separate into more than one layer for at least 24 hours at room temperature, Friedrich and Heibel disclose all of the limitations of claim 8. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirements of a liquid composition that does not separate into more than one layer for at least 24 hours at room temperature. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantial identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), “products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 and claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (WO 2017180888 A1) and Haetzelt (DE 102019111837 A1), as applied to claim 1 and claim 8, and Brooker (WO 2015148777 A1).
With regard to claim 6 and claim 13, Friedrich and Haetzelt disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 and claim 8.
However, Friedrich and Haetzelt fail to disclose a second compartment, wherein the second compartment comprises a powder composition, and wherein the powder composition comprises a fragrance composition.
Brooker teaches a unit dose product comprising a multi-compartment water soluble unit dose article, wherein a first compartment contains a powder composition and a second compartment contains a liquid composition (see page 2 line 11-13). Brooker further teaches the powder composition may contain perfumes (see page 7 line 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify water soluble pouch comprising at least one interior pouch in the interior space of Friedrich to include the powder composition and a liquid composition for the purpose of increasing the dissolution time of the fragrance to reduce potential interaction with incompatible substances (see Brooker, page 6 line 16-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Friedrich teaches a broad range of organic solvent and provides a list of general solvents. Applicant further argues that none of the examples of Friedrich comprise a polyethylene glycol, much less about 10% by weight or more of a PEG 400, as required by the claims. While none of the examples of Friedrich disclose the exact invention in the claims, the entirety of the reference must be considered. A reference is not limited to the working examples, see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982).
Applicant further argues that Haetzelt broadly discloses that its composition may optionally comprise solvents (preferably alcohols) in amounts of 0-25wt%. Haetzelt is utilized as prior art for the encapsulated fragrance slurry only. As stated above, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the following reasons. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve delayed diffusion of the fragrances across the capsule wall, as disclosed by Haetzelt.
Applicant argues a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of arriving at the liquid compositions recited in claims 1, 8, and 16 based on the unit dose of Friedrich and liquid composition of Haetzelt as incorporating high amounts of an encapsulated fragrance slurry into a unit dose or liquid composition comprising alcohol based solvents (e.g. glycerin, propylene glycol) is not as trivial as merely taking a component from a different formulation and directly applying it to another, without further thought or insight. As stated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of allowing a fragrance intensity to be perceived that would not be experienced with a pure fragrance because of the delayed diffusion of the fragrances across the capsule wall, as disclosed by Haetzelt.
Applicant further argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success in mitigating phase separation. Claim 15, depending from claim 8, discloses “the liquid composition does not separate into more than one layer for at least 24 hours at room temperature”. However, this does not necessitate a dual phase mixture. A single phase mixture would not separate into more than one phase as there is only a single phase. As stated above, while Friedrich and Heibel do not teach a fabric treatment unit does product of claim 8 wherein the liquid composition does not separate into more than one layer for at least 24 hours at room temperature, Friedrich and Heibel disclose all of the limitations of claim 8. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirements of a liquid composition that does not separate into more than one layer for at least 24 hours at room temperature. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantial identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), “products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant further argues that a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the composition into a unit dose product. Applicant argues it is required to introduce non-aqueous solvents to maintain the integrity of the film to prevent issues like leaking or dissolution that leads to poor product quality. As stated above, Haetzelt discloses 0-25wt% of solvents in detergents (see [0079]), which may be non-aqueous (see [0078]). Haetzelt further discloses the slurry as 4-50wt% of the composition (see [0065]). Friedrich discloses a unit does product comprising non-aqueous solvents. As Haetzelt includes a high concentration of encapsulated fragrance slurry and non-aqueous solvents, Haetzelt shows a composition comprising the two components is possible. Friedrich discloses the use of multicompartment capsules within a unit dose article to decrease the physical instability of the ingredients (see page 29 line 15-18).
Applicant further argues unexpected results, citing Example 1 of the instant specifications. Applicant specifically cites Composition 2 and the addition of PEG400 as “able to significantly improve the stability and make it stable after incubation at room temperature for 24 hours”. Composition 2 comprises 29wt% of PEG400. This is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claims disclose 20-50wt% of PEG having a molecular weight of about 400 Da.
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 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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights