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 1-14 are pending. Claim 1 is independent and amended in the response filed 6/8/2026.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious Adams et al. (EP 19200470) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants urge Adams et al. do not teach or suggest the claim 1 amendment to average surface extension ratio provides resistance to folding along the sealing plant and to maintain structural integrity during handling and transport.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, page 7,ln.28 Adams et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a flexible yet stable during transport, thus, effective washing pod encompassing the claimed average surface extension ratio with the extension amounts taught by Adams et al. pages 18,ln.29 to page 19,ln.24 and page 7,ln.28 to achieve a flexible yet stable and effective washing pod encompassing the stability properties of the amended claim. Beginning on page 18,ln30, Adams et al. teach that their dimensions are in each of the x, y, and z planes and because one of ordinary skill understands the surface area of any 3D object is the area of each face of the 3D object added together, and since Adams is teaching the same lengths, widths, and heights as is required in the dependent claims, PHOSITA would reasonably arrive at the claimed extension surface area ratio having the same properties of stability required in claim 1 as the disclosure to maintain stability during transport is addressed on page 7,ln.28.
Further supporting Examiner’s position is that Adams et al. teach a multicompartment unit dose watersoluble article having 0.1 to 3 mm sealing width between the 3 compartments. See page 6, ln.10-12 which meets the required average sealing width of instant claim 6.
Adams et al. teach each compartment has a maximum depth of from 5 to 40 mm. See page 6,ln.15 and page 7,ln.1-2.
Adams et al. teach the largest height of the compartments range from 5-40mm which encompasses the ratio of claim 9. See page 14,ln.10.
And Adams et al. teach limitation to the largest dimension on page 14, ln.5-20 teaching height, width and length of the capsule within the claimed range of 10-60 mm encompassing the instant claim 10 and thus, one of ordinary skill can easily arrive at the claimed extension ratio using the same calculation of extension surface ratio, with the prior art teaching the same parameters for length, width and height and Adams et al. page 7,ln28 guiding one of ordinary skill to optimize the capsules for stability during transport in general.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained and the claim amendment is addressed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious Adams et al. (EP 19200470) pdf attached.
Adams et al. (EP 19200470) also has US Pub No: US20220325210A1, however, the EP document is referenced below for the prior art date.
With respect to claim 1, Adams et al. teach a unit dose dishwasher capsule for treatment of dishes, the capsule comprising three compartments (see figure 1 and 2B) that are sealed with the same or different products from granular, liquids gels or powders and the capsules are made of polyvinyl alcohol water soluble films. See page 14,ln.6 encompassing claim 1 language to containing a substrate treatment composition. Also see page 1, lines 5-15 describing multi - compartment water - soluble detergent capsules are typically made with water - soluble film, for example polyvinyl alcohol. The preferred capsule manufacturing process involves thermoforming the film. Thermoforming is a process in which a first sheet of film is subjected to a moulding process to form recesses in the film. The process involves heating the film to soften it, and then applying vacuum to hold the film in the moulds. The recesses are then filled.
Claim 1 limitation to the capsule is formed from two sheets of water-soluble film, the two sheets of film being sealed together forming a sealing web lying on a sealing plane, the sealing web comprising a peripheral sealing skirt, inter-compartment sealing webs between compartments thereby separating the compartments from one another and a central sealing web is read upon by Adams et al. teaching the capsules are completed by overlaying a second sheet over the filled recesses and sealing it to the first sheet of film around the edges of the recesses to form a flat sealing web. See page 1,ln.5-16. Each of the three compartments is formed as described on page 4,ln.1-10, teaching sealing a second sheet of film to the first sheet of film across the formed recesses to produce a capsule having three compartments separated from each other by a continuous internal sealing web; See also the Figure 2E, items 22, 25 encompassin the peripheral sealing skirt, and items 22 and 23 encompassing language to an intercompartment sealing web.
Adams et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the compartments have an average surface extension ratio in the range of 1.5 to 3, the surface extension ratio is a surface area of the film above the sealing plane to a surface area of a footprint of the three compartments located in the sealing plane as required by claim 1. It is the Examiner’s position the claimed property can be calculated from the same parameters as claimed and taught by Adams et al. Beginning on page 18,ln30, Adams et al. teach that their dimensions are in each of the x, y, and z planes and because one of ordinary skill understands the surface area of any 3D object is the area of each face of the 3D object added together, and since Adams is teaching the same lengths, widths, and heights as is required in the dependent claims, PHOSITA would reasonably arrive at the claimed extension surface area ratio having the same properties of stability required in claim 1 as the disclosure to maintain stability during transport is addressed on page 7,ln.28.
Further supporting Examiner’s position is that Adams et al. teach a multicompartment unit dose watersoluble article having 0.1 to 3 mm sealing width between the 3 compartments. See page 6, ln.10-12.
Adams et al. teach each compartment has a maximum depth of from 5 to 40 mm. See page 6,ln.15 and page 7,ln.1-2.
Adams et al. teach the largest height of the compartments range from 5-40mm. See page 14,ln.10.
And Adams et al. teach limitation to the largest dimension on page 14, ln.5-20 teaching height, width and length of the capsule within the claimed range of 10-60 mm and thus, one of ordinary skill can easily arrive at the claimed extension ratio using the same calculation of extension surface ratio, with the prior art teaching the same parameters for length, width and height and Adams et al. page 7,ln28 guiding one of ordinary skill to optimize the capsules for stability during transport in general.
Adams et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as being in the same field of a unit dose having 3 compartments formed from a watersoluble film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed surface extension ratio in the range of 1.5 to 3 wherein the ratio provides the structural integrity properties as required in claim 1 because Adams et al. teach a PVA water soluble capsule having length, width, and height dimensions within the claimed ranges and ratios and further teach extension values wherein each compartment extends above and below the sealing plane to form a flexible capsule that takes up less volume in a package while maintaining stability during transport even in a flexible plastic container. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill can arrive at the claimed ratio with the extension amounts taught by Adams et al. pages 18,ln.29 to page 19,ln.24 and page 7,ln.28 to achieve a flexible, yet stable washing pod. One of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the parameters as claimed because Adams et al. teach the claimed surface extension amounts yields a flexible yet stable capsule for transport and teach any variations are discretionary.
With respect to the general shape and footprints, limitations to the compartments being arranged radially, planar symmetry, width, volume, height, etc, of claims 2-4, is met by the art teaching discretion in the shape of the compartments. See page 17,ln.4 teaching various polygonal shapes composed of curved or straight lines or combinations thereof. See also page 23,ln.5-10 guiding one of ordinary skill to modifications. Regarding the identical shape of the footprint of the compartments required by claim 5, Adams et al. teach the identical shape is achieved by use of a semi - circular mould cross - section for the compartment. These circular moulds also encompass the radial arrangement of claim 2. The relaxation of the formed capsule once it has been removed from the mould can change the compartment, for example, change a semi - ovaloid cross - section to be nearer to a fully ovaloid cross - section which remains substantially uniform because the relaxation is substantially uniform. The compartments can be generally polygonal in plane view. These shapes (whether identical or varying) are achieved by use of various mould cross - sections for each compartment. See page 5,ln.20-page 6.
Adams et al. teach multicompartment unit dose watersoluble article have width sufficient to ensure sealing between the 3 compartments, from 0.1 to 3 mm. See page 6, ln.10-12 meeting the range of claim 6.
Claims 4 and 7 are met Adams et al. teaching preferably, the third compartment is larger than each of the first and second compartments and each compartment has a maximum depth of from 5 to 40 mm , more preferred from 8 to 30 mm , most preferred from 9 to 20 mm. See page 6,ln.15 and page 7,ln.1-2.
Adams et al. teach the height of the compartments range from 5-40mm which encompasses the ratio of claim 9. See page 14,ln.10.
Claim 10 limitation to the largest dimension is taught on page 14, ln.5-20 teaching height, width and length of the capsule within the claimed range of 10-60 mm.
Regarding the volume of claims 11-13, page 20,ln.5-30 teach an embodiment wherein each compartment is configured to hold more than another compartment and an embodiment where 2 compartments hold a substantially equal amount. The volume of the third compartment 13 is such that the weight of the powder compound is at least 7 grams, preferable 10 grams. Each liquid compound weighs substantially at least 1.5 grams , preferable 2.7 grams .By having the liquid compound a medium weight , that is , a weight above approximately 2 grams which difference in volumes encompasses the claim 13 ratio of 0.1 to 2.5 times.
Regarding the method of claim 14, see pages 3-4 describing the thermoforming process including the a ) placing a first sheet of water - soluble polyvinyl alcohol film over a mould comprising cavities;
( b ) heating and applying vacuum to the film to mould the film into the cavities and hold it in place to form corresponding recesses in the film;
( c ) filling the different parts of a detergent composition, each of which may have a different colour / opacity (as well as different treatment function) into the recesses, the parts together forming a full detergent composition;
( d ) sealing a second sheet of film to the first sheet of film across the formed recesses to produce a capsule having three compartments separated from each other by a continuous internal sealing web;
( e ) cutting between the capsules so that a series of capsules with three compartments are formed , each capsule containing a part of a detergent composition in three compartments (e.g. , one larger - sized compartment and two relatively medium - sized compartments).
Limitation to the compartments having surface extension ratio in the range of 1.6 to 3 as required in claim 1 and 14 is met by Adams et al. teaching their multicompartment unit dose watersoluble article wherein each compartment extends above (page 19,ln.5) and below the sealing plane (page 19,ln.10-15) to form a compact and stable separation of the interior of compartments and results in a flexible capsule that takes up less volume in a package. See page 20,ln.30-page 21,ln.2. See also pages 18,ln.29 to page 19,ln.24. Adams et al. teach that each Adams et al. teach each of the first compartment 11 , the second compartment 12 , and the third compartment 13 extends above the sealing plane such that the part of each compartment that is furthermost from the sealing plane, in a direction perpendicular to the sealing plane is referred to herein as the first distance ( d1 ), the second distance ( d2 ), and the third distance ( d3 ), respectively; wherein d1 is less than or equal to 20 mm , is less than or equal to 12 mm , or is less than or equal to 8 mm ; d2 is less than or equal to 20 mm , is less than or equal to 12 mm , or is less than or equal to 8 mm ; and d3 is is less than or equal to 40 mm , is less than or equal to 30 mm , is less than or equal to 20 mm , or is less than or equal to 12 mm. Each of the three compartments 11, 12, 13 extends below the sealing plane such that the part of each compartment that is furthermost from the sealing plane, in a direction perpendicular to the sealing plane is referred to herein as the fourth distance (d4), wherein d4 is 5-9 mm. (See page 19, ln.5-15).
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights