The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 7, 2025.
Claims 17-31 are pending. Claims 27-31 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected invention. Claims 17, 22 and 26 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 17-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 17-24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2018/011596) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure stands objected to because of the following informalities: while it is appreciated that a “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS” heading is added on page 41, line 18 of the specification, the heading is only true for the paragraph below it, i.e., lines 19-22, and not for the rest of the paragraphs. It is suggested that the brief description of the drawings with its heading be relocated before the “DETAILED DESCRIPTION” heading on page 6 of the specification, to comply with the suggested guideline as discussed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 17, lines 16, the limitation “at least 20 wt% of a bleaching activator” lacks literal basis in the specification as originally filed, see Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff'd mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984), hence is considered as new matter. In addition, the limitation “at least 20 wt% of a bleaching activator” does not meet the description requirement because the phrase "at least" has no upper limit and may cause the claim to read on embodiments outside the upper limit of “80 wt” in the specification on page 20, lines 33-34 (last two lines). See also MPEP 2163.05 III.
Claims 18-26, being dependent on claim 17, inherit the same rejection as discussed in claim 17 above.
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 17-20 and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillmann et al. (US 2019/0010428), hereinafter “Tillmann” in view of Favre et al. (US Patent No. 5,246,621, already cited in IDS dated 03/21/2023), hereinafter “Favre.”
Regarding claims 17-19, 23-24 and 26, Tillman teaches a co-granule comprising: (A) a core comprising: a) at least one metal-containing bleach catalyst; b) at least one binder; optionally at least one bleach activator; and (B) a coating like polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), as one of the selections (see paragraphs [0016]-[[0022]; claim 1). One type of bleach catalyst includes the manganese-based complexes disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,246,621 and one preferred example is MnIV2(µ-O)3(1,4,7-trimethyl-1,4,7-triaza-cyclononane)2-(PF6)2 (“MnTACN”) (see paragraph [0027]), i.e., [MnIV2 (μ-0)3 (Me-TACN)2 (PF6)2 which may be amorphous or nanocrystalline. As a binder, any suitable compound can be used, and some examples include carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and starch (see paragraph [0035]). Preferred bleach activator is TAED (tetraacetylethylenediamine) (see paragraphs [0050]-[0051]). The bleach activator in the core of the particle might represent up to 75 wt-% of the particle core, e.g. in an amount of 0.1 to 70 wt.-%, 0.5 to 60 wt.-%, 1 to 50 wt.-% or any other suitable amount (see paragraph [0052]). The coating is the outermost layer on the surface of the granulate particle comprising of at least one water soluble coating material (see paragraph [0054]), and preferred water-soluble coating includes polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) or copolymers of PVA and polyethylene glycol (PEG) (see paragraph [0057]). Tillman, however, fails to specifically disclose at least 20 wt% of a bleaching activator like tetraacetylethylenediamine, and a manganese-based complex like [MnIV2 (μ-0)3 (Me-TACN)2 (NO3)2 as recited in claims 17-18 and 26.
Favre, U.S. Pat. No. 5,246,621 disclosed in Tillman above, teaches manganese complex bleach catalyst like MnIV2 (μ-0)3 (Me-TACN)2 (PF6)2 (see col. 6, lines 1-7) and similar manganese complex having counterions not only PF6, among others, but also NO3 (see col. 2, lines 41-66).
With respect to the amount of the bleaching activator, considering that Tillman teaches the bleach activator in the core of the particle in an amount of 0.1 to 70 wt.-% as disclosed in paragraph [0052], 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 reference (e.g., 20 to 70 wt%) 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 also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the MnIV2 (μ-0)3 (Me-TACN)2 (PF6)2 of Tillman with [MnIV2 (μ-0)3 (Me-TACN)2 (NO3)2 because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Favre is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one manganese complex bleach catalyst for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 20, 22 and 25, Tillman in view of Favre teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Tillman teaches that the bleach catalyst may amount from 0.01 to 85 wt.-% of the particle core, preferably in an amount of 0.2 to 20 wt.-% (see paragraph [0034]); and the bleach activator in the core of the particle might represent up to 75 wt-% of the particle core, e.g. in an amount of 0.1 to 70 wt.-%, 0.5 to 60 wt.-%, 1 to 50 wt.-% or any other suitable amount (see paragraph [0052]). The coating may amount from 1 to 95 wt.-% of the granular particle, or 1 up to 20 wt.-% of the granular particle (see paragraph [0053]). In the Example, the co-granules comprise 5 wt.-% MnTACN, 25 wt.-% CMC binder, which is equivalent to the starch, and 70 wt.-% TAED and were coated with 20% Kollicot Protect (1), i.e., copolymers of PVA and PEG (see paragraph [0167] and Table 1). Tillman in view of Favre need not teach filler or salt as recited in claim 25 because the minimum amount of these components are ”zero.”
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillman in view of Favre as applied to claims 17-20 and 22-26 above, and further in view of Irwin et al. (U.S Patent No. 4,711,748), hereinafter “Irwin” for the reasons set forth in the previous office action and which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
Tillman in view of Favre teaches the features as discussed above. Tillman in view of Favre, however, fails to disclose the starch, like potato starch.
It is known from Irwin, an analogous art, that starches used as binders in bleach catalyst aggregates include potato starch (see col. 6, lines 19-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated potato starch as the specific starch binder in the co-granule of Tillman in view of Favre because this is a typical starch binder as taught by Irwin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 17-20 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillmann in view of Favre, and the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillman in view of Favre as applied to claims 17-20 and 22-26 above, and further in view of Irwin, Applicant argues that the specification as originally filed contains adequate evidence of unexpected results to overcome any purported prima facie obviousness, and in particular, it was demonstrated in the examples that the presence of larger amounts of bleaching activator in combination with PVOH as a binder and a selected manganese complex results in granules with high storage stability like in Granule 4 (granules of the invention) when compared to granule 6 with CaSO4 instead of TAED.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because the showing of the high storage stability test of Granule 4 as well as Granules 1, 2 and 5 (see Table at page 37 of the specification and page 39, lines 22-24) is only true for the specific ingredients, i.e., TAED, corn starch, MnTACNSO4 and polyvinyl alcohol and their respective proportions, and not for the other species recited in independent claim 17. It is noted, however, that Granule 3 with CaSO4 instead of TAED also showed high storage stability (see page 39, lines 22-24). Accordingly, the above rejections are maintained.
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761