Response to Amendment
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreher et al. (US 2015/0071572) hereinafter “Dreher” in view of Lant et al (2018/0155658) and further in view of Sivik et al (2020/0071644).
Dreher teaches a pouch comprising a fibrous wall material, such as a water soluble fibrous wall material, that defines an internal volume of the pouch containing one or more active agents (see paragraph [0012]). As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 (see below), an example of a pouch 10 comprises a pouch wall material 12, such as a fibrous wall material 14, for example a water-soluble fibrous wall material. The pouch wall material 12 defines an internal volume 16 of the pouch 10. Any contents 18 of the pouch 10, for example active agents in the form of powder, laundry detergent compositions, dishwashing compositions, and other cleaning compositions, may be contained and retained in the internal volume 16 of the pouch 10 at least until the pouch 10 ruptures, for example during use. The fibrous wall material comprises a plurality of fibrous elements, for example a plurality of filaments; and in one example, the plurality of fibrous filaments are inter-entangled to form a fibrous structure (see paragraph [0117]), which reads on “fibrous non-woven sheet” of instant claim 1. The fibrous element, such as a filament and/or fiber, comprises one or more filament- forming materials (see paragraph [0133]), like polyvinyl alcohol, i.e., polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer (see paragraphs [0155] and [0158]). The water-soluble polymers, like polyvinyl alcohol, exhibit a weight average molecular weight of at least 10,000 g/mol and/or at least 20,000 g/mol and/or at least 40,000 g/mol (see paragraph [0157]). The fibrous element may comprise plasticizers like polyols or sugar alcohols (see paragraph [0063]). In one example, the fibrous element of the comprises greater than 90% or greater than 85% by weight on a dry fibrous wall material basis of one or more filament-forming materials like polyvinyl alcohol.
Regarding the hueing dye and acyl hydrazone bleach, Dreher teach bleaching agents and hueing agents (0182) but does not specify with sufficient specificity the particular dyes and bleaches as claimed.
Lant discloses The present disclosure relates to cleaning compositions, which may be in granular form (0022) and that include an extracellular-polymer-degrading enzyme selected from the group consisting of galactanase enzymes, mannanase enzymes, and mixtures thereof and certain adjunct material(s), such as water-insoluble plant fibers, particular dye control agents, particular alkoxylated phenol compounds, a bleaching system that includes a peroxygen source and an acyl hydrazone bleach catalyst (0110) an amine, or mixtures thereof (0002). With respect to the hueing die, Lant discloses The composition may comprise a fabric shading agent. Suitable fabric shading agents include dyes, dye-clay conjugates, and pigments. Suitable dyes include small molecule dyes and polymeric dyes. Suitable small molecule dyes include small molecule dyes selected from the group consisting of dyes falling into the Colour Index (C.I.) classifications of Direct Blue, Direct Red, Direct Violet, Acid Blue, Acid Red, Acid Violet, Basic Blue, Basic Violet and Basic Red, or mixtures thereof. Preferred dyes include alkoxylated azothiophenes, Solvent Violet 13, Acid Violet 50 and Direct Violet 9 (0171) in amounts from 0.01-10% (0219-0220 and examples 27).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include bleaching and dyes to the granular formulation for their intended purpose of improving soil and malodor removing (0110) and furthermore dyeing to improve fabric shading (0171).
Regarding the basis weight of the water-soluble fibrous non-woven sheet, considering that Dreher teaches that the fibrous wall material exhibits a basis weight of less than 5000 g/m? or less than 500 g/m? (or less than 500gsm) as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method as disclosed in paragraph [0049], 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 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).
Dreher in view of Lant teaches the features as discussed above. Dreher in view of Lant however, fails to disclose the polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of hydrolysis of from about 65% to about 100%.
Sivik, an analogous art, teaches a household care composition, which delivers active agents onto fabric surfaces, in the form of water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water- soluble fibrous structure (see abstract), wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements (see paragraph [0008]), wherein the fibrous elements comprise a filament-forming material like polyvinyl alcohol (see paragraphs [0079] and [0083)). Sivik also teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of hydrolysis from about 75% to 85% (see paragraph [0069]).
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 polyvinyl alcohol of Dreher in view of Lant to have a degree of hydrolysis within those recited because it is known from Sivik that a polyvinyl alcohol in a similar unit dose article has a degree of hydrolysis from about 75% to 85%.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-20-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lant et al do not teach the amount of hueing dye particle and hueing dye.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that applicant’s rep. return above to the disclosure of Lant et al where the examiner disclosed the teachings of applicant’s preferred hueing dye, Acid violet dye 50, in example 27 at 0.05% and where Lant et al specifically taught encapsulated dyes are employed from 0.1-10% (0219-0220). Again, as a prima facie case of obviousness has been presented in the prior art applicant has failed to show unexpected results to the contrary as Dreher and Lant have suggested particular compositions with hueing dyes utilized for shade control, in their requisite proportions, would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
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 NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST 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 attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761