DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The lists of forms for the composition include a puck, a tablet, a briquette, or a capsule which is already required by claim 19 from which claim 23 depends and does not further modify the claim. The addition of the listed items of a power mix, a granule or an agglomerate conflict which that already required by claim 19, resulting in claim 23 not including the limitations thereof. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 factual inquiries that are applied 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.
Claims 13-17, 19 and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy et al. (U.S. 2005/0040116 A1), hereinafter “Purdy” in view of Reeves, III et al. (U.S. 2009/0081806 A1), hereinafter “Reeves”.
As for claims 19 and 23, Purdy a bilayer solid water-treatment composition comprising:
a first layer comprising sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC)--as per the abstract, NaDCC is included in the fast-dissolving layer (FDL), and
a second layer comprising Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)—as per the abstract, TCCA is included in the slow-dissolving layer (SDL),
wherein at least one of the first and second layer further comprises boric acid or citric acid—as per 0072, boric acid can be incorporated into the tablet, also, as per 0050-0051, citric acid can be incorporated in amount of 0 to 20% of the FDL,
wherein at least one of the first and second layer further comprises aluminium sulfate or zinc oxide—as per 0046, zinc oxide can be included in either the SDL or the FDL, and
wherein said bilayer solid water-treatment composition is compacted in the form of a puck, a tablet, a briquette, or a capsule—as per the title the composition can be in the form of a tablet.
Purdy doesn’t specify his boric acid and/or citric acid to have the specific %w/w of the entire composition, but such is made obvious in view of Reeves. Reeves teaches adding boric acid and/or citric acid to a pool as a neutralizer when a pool is treated with a halogen (both NaDCC and TCCA are chlorine donors) in an amount that depends upon the pH of the water prior to addition and also upon the volume of the water being treated (abstract) such that the amount added would have been obvious depending upon the environment of use. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add such an amount of boric acid and/or citric acid to the composition of Purdy since Reeves teaches combining with waters that are treated with chlorine for the benefits of aiding in sanitization of the water (since chlorine effectiveness depends on pH), increasing buffering capacity and providing aesthetically pleasing levels of properties such as enhanced clarity of the water [0007-0009]—which would further perfect the composition of Purdy which already includes both boric acid and citric acid [as in claims 19, 23, 29-30].
As for claim 27, the composition can comprise TCCA, NaDCC, boric acid and/or citric acid, zinc oxide (as shown above) and also can include aluminum sulfate (as a water clarifier, see 0054-0055).
As for claim 22, Purdy in view of Reeves teaches that one layer can include TCCA and the other layer NaDCC and in addition each layer can include a clarifier, an algaecide, and a neutralizer (dissolution control agent) [0023, 0039] and as pointed out above, teaches all the components claimed. He doesn’t teach that each layer has the components specified for each layer of claim 22 but such would have been obvious depending upon the specific application and what would provide comprehensive treatment in the environment of use [0021].
As for claims 13-17 and 24-26, Purdy in view of Reeves teaches a solid water treatment composition in the form of a dual layer tablet for swimming pools [0019], wherein the composition includes a source of chlorine including e.g. NaDCC (or TCCA); a neutralizer including e.g. citric acid or sodium bisulfate or sodium carbonate; an algaecide including e.g. copper sulfate; and a clarifier including e.g. aluminum sulfate. The composition can also include boric acid [0072].
As for claim 28, upon modification the composition is formulated to achieve any one of the listed functions.
As shown above, the tablet can include all the components claimed. Purdy in view of Reeves teaches weight percentages of a component for each layer but doesn’t specify the weight percent of each component in the whole tablet. However, such would have been obvious and designed based on the objective of the particular application without limitation—as taught by Purdy [0077] and according to the end purpose to be achieved [0019]. The addition of the teachings of Reeves makes obvious the inclusion of sufficient amounts of boric acid and/or citric acid into the composition to further perfect sanitation of pool water (the goal of Purdy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of new grounds of rejections applied.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning the amount of each constituent within the composition, it is contended that weight-percent optimization is routinely held to be obvious and not undue experimentation--for example, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955): “where 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.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p M-F.
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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights