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 October 20, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34-38 and 40 are pending. Claims 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31-33 and 39 were cancelled. Claims 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 34-38 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1, 9 and 11 are currently amended. Claim 40 is newly added.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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 1-3, 7, 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zerhusen et al. (US 2017/0349865), hereinafter “Zerhusen” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 4, 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 9 and 15 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 40, line 1, the phrase “the cleaning composition” lacks support with respect to claim 1 to which this claim is dependent upon.
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 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartshorn (US 2018/0195028) in view of Vasquez Valdivieso et al. (US 2017/0260481), hereinafter “Vasquez Valdivieso.”
Regarding claim 1, Hartshorn teaches a packaged composition comprising a plurality of laundry scent particles, wherein said particles comprise: polyethylene glycol and perfume (which reads on the scent booster composition), among others (see Title, ¶ [0001] and [0032], abstract and claim 1), and wherein the particles may be formed into different shapes like pills (see ¶ [0032]), which reads on “pastilles,” hence, the above plurality of pastilles read on the first plurality of laundry pastilles of instant claim 1. Hartshorn, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a second plurality of laundry pastilles, wherein each laundry pastille comprises a composition which increases a performance characteristic of the total plurality of laundry pastilles, wherein said composition comprises at least one enzyme, and wherein the first plurality of laundry pastilles comprise between 50% by weight and 99% by weight of the total plurality of laundry pastilles, and the second plurality of laundry pastilles comprise between 1% by weight and 50% by weight of the total plurality of laundry pastilles.
Vasquez Valdivieso teaches a particulate laundry additive composition comprising a plurality of particles which comprise from about 40% to about 99% by weight of said particles of a carrier and from about 0.0001% to about 5% by weight of said particles of an enzyme (see ¶ [0001] and claim 1), and the individual particles can have a shape selected from the group consisting of spherical, hemispherical, compressed hemispherical, lentil shaped, and oblong (see ¶ [0015]), which reads on “pastilles” of the instant claim.
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to the proportions of the plurality of laundry scent particles of Hartshorn, i.e., first plurality of laundry pastilles, and the plurality of particulate laundry additive comprising enzyme of Vasquez Valdivieso, i.e., second plurality of laundry pastilles, when combined as a mixture, absent criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of the plurality of laundry scent particles of Hartshorn, and the plurality of particulate laundry additive comprising enzyme of Vasquez Valdivieso, to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited, for example, 50 wt% of the plurality of laundry scent particles of Hartshorn and 50 wt% of the plurality of particulate laundry additive comprising enzyme of Vasquez Valdivieso. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the plurality of laundry scent particles of Hartshorn, and the plurality of particulate laundry additive comprising enzyme of Vasquez Valdivieso through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hartshorn further teaches that the laundry scent particles i.e., first plurality of laundry pastilles or laundry scent booster, comprise from about 20% by weight to about 99% by weight of the particles of polyethylene glycol (PEG), i.e., carrier, (see ¶ [0014], claim 6), preferably from about 65% to about 99% by weight of the composition of PEG (see ¶ [0015], and from about 0.01% to about 20% by weight of said particles of perfume, i.e., fragrance (see ¶ [0019], claim 11), and the PEG has a weight average molecular weight from about 2,000 to about 13,000 (see ¶ [0014]). Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso, however, fails to specifically disclose between 90% by weight and 99% by weight of polyethylene glycol carrier and between 2% by weight and 10% by weight of perfume or fragrance as recited in claims 2-3 and the PEG having a number-averaged molecular weight from about 2000 to about 4000 as recited in claim 4.
Considering that Hartshorn teaches from about 20% by weight to about 99%, or about 65% to about 99% by weight of the particles of PEG carrier and from about 0.01% to about 20% by weight of said particles of perfume, i.e., fragrance; and the PEG having a weight average molecular weight range from about 2,000 to about 13,000 as discussed above, 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 (i.e., 90-99wt% PEG; 2-20wt% perfume or fragrance; PEG having weight average molecular weight from 2,000 to about 4,000) 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).
Regarding claim 7, Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso teaches the features as discussed above. Hartshorn further teaches that the perfume comprises neat perfume oil or neat fragrance oil (see F1-F4 and F6 formulations in Table 1, page 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso teaches the features as discussed above. Hartshorn further teaches that the perfume comprises perfume encapsulate (see F1-F4 and F6 formulations in Table 1, page 5).
Regarding claim 11, Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso teaches the features as discussed above. Vasquez Valdivieso further teaches that the plurality of particles comprise from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight perfume (see claim 1), like unencapsulated perfume, i.e., perfume oil or encapsulated perfume (see ¶ [0071] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso teaches the features as discussed above. Hartshorn further teaches that the laundry scent particles comprise a dye (see F1-F6 formulations in Table 1, page 5; see also ¶ [0028] and [0030]). In addition, Vasquez Valdivieso teaches that the particles comprise a dye from about 0.001% to about 0.1% by weight of the particles (see ¶ [0070]). Hence, it is envisaged that the laundry scent particles of Hartshorn have a different color than the particles of Vasquez Valdivieso.
Regarding claim 40, Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Vasquez Valdivieso teaches that the enzymes may be used with surfactants (see ¶ [0003]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 40 above, and further in view of Zerhusen (US 2023/0054402).
Regarding claim 5, Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso teaches the features as discussed above. Hartshorn in view Vasquez Valdivieso, however, fails to disclose the first plurality of laundry particles or laundry scent particles comprising a carrier which comprises a hydrated salt like sodium acetate trihydrate, magnesium nitrate hexahydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate or magnesium sulfate heptahydrate, and wherein the hydrated salt has a melting point of less than 150oC.
Zerhusen, an analogous art, teaches a composition comprising a plurality of particles, wherein each of the particles comprises water-soluble polymer, perfume and a salt hydrate (see claim 1), wherein the salt hydrate comprises sodium acetate trihydrate, magnesium nitrate hexahydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate, magnesium sulfate heptahydrate, among others (see claim 3). The water-soluble polymer and salt hydrate allow for structural integrity of the particle, thus carrying high levels of perfume in the particle (see ¶ [0004]).
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 salt hydrate carrier like sodium acetate trihydrate, magnesium nitrate hexahydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate or magnesium sulfate heptahydrate into the laundry scent particles of Hartshorn, i.e., first plurality of laundry pastilles, because such incorporation would allow for structural integrity of the particles, thus carrying high levels of perfume in the particles as taught by Zerhusen. Even though Zerhusen does not explicitly disclose the melting point of the above salt hydrates, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the above salt hydrates to have a melting point within those recited because the same salt hydrates have been utilized, hence, would have similar, if not the same, melting points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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