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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received October 15, 2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mort et al, US 2007/0249512.
Mort et al teach a perfume particle having a size up to 4mm comprising a core and a layer wherein perfume and molten PEG-4000 are added to a mixer containing core particles including sodium carbonate to form perfume particles (see claim 1 and ¶34, example 4). Note the perfume and an ethoxylated alcohol (softening active) may be present in the core (claim 3), the perfume may be present in a microcapsule (claim 5), and the layer may include a hydratable material with a particle size of less than 50 microns (claim 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a perfume particle comprising sodium carbonate, perfume, and PEG-4000 as this is precisely taught by the reference, and to formulate a particle of the size claimed as this size range is taught by the reference, and persons of skill in the art know the typical sizes for perfume particles used in detergents.
With respect to the intermediate particle claimed, the claim requires two carriers, a binder, which may be one of the carriers, and a perfume, and so only three components with mixing are required to formulate the particle of claim 1. The examiner maintains that adding these three components to a mixer, and ultimately making a perfumed particle, satisfies the intermediate particle limitation, as the intermediate particle and the final particle are formed concurrently. It is not inventive to mix three well-known components together to form a perfume particle.
With respect to claim 3, sodium carbonate is found in granular form. It is obvious to form granules by standard granulation methods.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not teach a second carrier having a particle size of from 5 to 150 microns. The examiner disagrees and directs applicants to claim 4 which clearly states the sodium carbonate is in fine particulate form and has a particle size of less than 50 microns, which is within the range claimed. True there is also sodium carbonate as the core material, and this is larger, but the examiner maintains the hydratable material in the layer satisfies the “second carrier” limitation.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Blarcon et al, US 2013/0095717.
Van Blarcon et al teach a fabric softening particle formed by mixing molten PEG-8000 and perfume and adding this mixture to salt granules with agitation to form coated granules (¶423, example 2). Note these particles may also be formed as pastilles where they are dropped onto a film (which will form a pastille with a flattened side, i.e. hemispheres ¶426, example 3), and the perfumes may be found in a microcapsule (¶170). The particle size can range from 0.1 to 50 mm (¶85). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a perfume particle comprising sodium chloride, perfume, and PEG-8000 as this is precisely taught by the reference, and to formulate a particle of the size claimed as this size range is taught by the reference, and persons of skill in the art know the typical sizes for perfume particles used in detergents.
With respect to the intermediate particle claimed, the claim requires two carriers, a binder, which may be one of the carriers, and a perfume, and so only three components with mixing are required to formulate the particle of claim 1. The examiner maintains that adding these three components to a mixer, and ultimately making a perfumed particle, satisfies the intermediate particle limitation, as the intermediate particle and the final particle are formed concurrently. It is not inventive to mix three well-known components together to form a perfume particle.
With respect to claim 3, sodium chloride is found in granular form. It is obvious to form granules by standard granulation methods.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not teach a second carrier having a particle size of from 5 to 150 microns. The examiner disagrees and directs applicants to ¶85 where the salt may be as small as 100 microns.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunder et al, US 2011/0097369.
Sunder et al teach a perfume particle comprising sucrose, bentonite, silica, perfume microcapsules, dye, and PEG-6000 (¶115), formed by producing a melt of the PEG and perfume and combining this melt with the carrier material (¶89). The particle size of these particles is from 0.1 to 30mm (claim 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a perfume particle comprising bentonite, perfume, and PEG-6000 as this is precisely taught by the reference, and to formulate a particle of the size claimed as this size range is taught by the reference, and persons of skill in the art know the typical sizes for perfume particles used in detergents.
With respect to the intermediate particle claimed, the claim requires two carriers, a binder, which may be one of the carriers, and a perfume, and so only three components with mixing are required to formulate the particle of claim 1. The examiner maintains that adding these three components to a mixer, and ultimately making a perfumed particle, satisfies the intermediate particle limitation, as the intermediate particle and the final particle are formed concurrently. It is not inventive to mix three well-known components together to form a perfume particle.
With respect to claim 3, clays and silicates are found in granular form. It is obvious to form granules by standard granulation methods.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not teach a second carrier having a particle size of from 5 to 150 microns. The examiner disagrees and directs applicants to claim 13 where the particle size may be as small as 100 microns. The reference teaches larger particle sizes as well, but as the basic components claimed are taught by the reference, PEG, perfume and particulate carrier, and in particle sizes which overlap the range claimed, the reference must be applied.
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights