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 29, 2025.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are pending. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 14 are currently amended.
The objection to claims 5 and 13 for minor informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 9-10 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sankar (WO2022/128368) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 9-10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bone et al. (US 2003/0054966), hereinafter “Bone” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dehan (US Patent No. 4,886,615) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 5-8 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone as applied to claims 1-4, 9-10 and 14 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone as applied to claims 1-4, 9-10 and 14 above, and further in view of Brooker et al. (US 2010/0192986) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone as applied to claims 1-4, 9-10 and 14 above, and further in view of Bouniol et al. (US 2019/0048288) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehan as applied to claims 1-4 above is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-14 and 16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-9 and 12-17 of each of U.S. Patent Nos: 11,946,022 and 12,365,855 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-5 and 12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/116,356 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/116,369 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-16 of copending Application No. 18/116,512 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1, line 20 (second from last line, it is suggested that “composition” be added after “detergent”
b) in claim 9, lines 1-2, the phrase “comprising a non-soap anionic surfactant,” is already recited in independent claim 1, to which this claim is dependent upon. It is suggested that this phrase be deleted. In addition, “comprises” after “surfactant” in line 6 should be replaced with “is” to properly depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the non-soap anionic surfactant” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 and 11-16, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of claim 12 is already recited in independent claim 1 (see last two lines) to which this claim is ultimately dependent upon. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-9 and 11- 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar (WO 2022/128368).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 14, Sankar teaches a unit dose composition comprising anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant and a non-aqueous solvent, wherein the nonionic surfactant comprises from 10% wt. to 100% wt. of the total nonionic surfactant, a secondary alcohol ethoxylate, wherein the anionic surfactant comprises an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine (MIPA) and/or triisopropanolamine (TIPA) counterion (see abstract; page 2, lines 31-32), wherein the composition is a liquid laundry or liquid dishwash composition (see page 1, line 4). Preferably, the secondary alcohol ethoxylate is Tergitol 15-S-9 (C11-15 secondary alcohol with 9 ethoxylate groups), and is present at from 10 to 100% wt. of the total nonionic surfactant, which equates with from about 5% wt. of the total composition to about 60% wt. of the total composition (see page 2, lines 29-35). In Table 2, Example 3, Sankar teaches a laundry composition which comprises 31.300 wt% LAS (linear alkylbenzene sulfonate) acid, 6.500 wt% MEA (monoethanolamine, which will neutralize the LAS acid), 25.000 wt% NI 7EO (i.e., primary nonionic surfactant with 7 ethoxylate groups), 5.000 wt% fatty acid, 20.300 wt% MIPA-LES (monoisopropanolamine-lauryl ether sulfate anionic surfactant), 4.150 MPG (monopropylene glycol or 1,2-propanediol), among others (see page 13, last line to page 14, line 5), and the laundry composition is contained within a pouch formed by a water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film (see page 8, lines 5-16; claim 8). Sankar also teaches that non-aqueous carriers, like the MPG above, may be present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 20% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (see page 6, lines 31-35). Sankar also teaches that the weight ratio between the anionic and the nonionic surfactant is from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3 (see claim 5). Sankar also teaches that the composition comprises less than 5% free water (see page 7, lines 1-5), or from 0 to 5% wt. water (see claim 3). Sankar, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate like Tergitol 15-S-9 in an amount between about 10% and about 20% by weight of the laundry composition, and water in an amount between about 1% and about 20% by weight of the liquid detergent composition, say in Example 3 above, the amount of the non-aqueous solvent, i.e., MPG, between about 10% and about 40% by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition, and the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the alcohol ethoxylate as recited in claim 1.
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 Tergitol 15-S-9 and water in their optimum proportion, say in Example 3, because Sankar specifically desires the addition of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate into the composition as disclosed in the abstract and water as disclosed at page 7, lines 1-5. With respect to the amount of the secondary alcohol ethoxylate, water and MPG, considering that Sankar teaches secondary alcohol ethoxylate in an amount from about 5% wt. to about 60% wt. of the total composition, from 0 to 5% wt. water, and from 0.1 to 20wt% non-aqueous carrier like MPG, 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., 10 wt% Tergitol 15-S-9; 1 wt% water; 10 wt% MPG or 1,2-propanediol) 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).
With respect to the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant, considering that Sankar teaches that the weight ratio between the anionic and the nonionic surfactant is from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3 (see claim 5), 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., 1:1) 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 claims 4-6 and 8, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sankar teaches, in Table 3, different levels of nonionic surfactants in concentrated formulations and one example is 25 wt% EO7 (i.e., ethoxylated primary alcohol nonionic surfactant, which is linear and construed to be derived from a synthetic alcohol source) and 25 wt% Tergitol 17-S-7 (i.e., ethoxylated secondary alcohol nonionic surfactant), hence the weight ratio of the ethoxylated secondary alcohol nonionic surfactant to the ethoxylated primary alcohol nonionic surfactant is 25:25, or 1:1, or in terms of percentages, 50 wt% ethoxylated primary alcohol nonionic surfactant and 50 wt% ethoxylated secondary alcohol nonionic surfactant.
Regarding claim 7, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. Sankar, however, fails to disclose the primary alcohol ethoxylate being made by a process like an oxo process.
This limitation is considered a product-by-process limitation, hence, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Regarding claim 9, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sankar teaches that the non-soap anionic surfactants are typically salts of organic sulfates and sulfonates like alkyl sulfates and alkaryl sulfonates, like alkylbenzene sulfonate, among others, and mixtures thereof (see page 3, lines 26-34; page 4, lines 23-25 and 33-34). Sankar, however, fails to disclose the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate.
Even though Sankar is silent as to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, when used as a mixture, 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 each of the alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. 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 alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 11, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Sankar teaches in Table 2, Example 3, a laundry composition which comprises 5.000 wt% fatty acid (see Table 2 on page 14).
Regarding claims 12, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Sankar teaches that the composition comprises less than 5% free water (see page 7, lines 1-5), or from 0 to 5% wt. water (see claim 3). Sankar, however, fails to disclose water in an amount between about 1% and about 20% by weight of the liquid detergent composition.
Considering that Sankar teaches from 0 to 5% wt. water, 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., 1 wt% water) 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 13, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sankar teaches that the composition comprises non-aqueous carriers such as hydrotropes, co-solvents and phase stabilizers, and such materials include, aside from monopropylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, glycerol, polyethylene glycol, or mixtures thereof (see page 6, lines 19-35).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar as applied to claims 1-9 and 11- 14 above, and further in view of Brooker et al. (US 2010/0192986), hereinafter “Brooker.”
Regarding claim 15, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. Sankar, however, fails to disclose the water-soluble pouch comprising at least two or at least three compartments arranged in a superposed arrangement and wherein at least two top compartments are arranged in a side-by-side configuration.
It is known from Brooker, an analogous art, that a detergent product is provided as a detergent multi-compartment water soluble pouch comprising at least two side-by-side compartments superposed onto another compartment, wherein this disposition contributes to the compactness, robustness and strength of the pouch, and wherein at least two of the compartments of the pouch contain two different compositions (see paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the water-soluble pouch of Sankar in the form of a multi-compartment water soluble pouch comprising at least two side-by-side compartments superposed onto another compartment, wherein the composition of Sankar is in at least one of the compartments because such disposition contributes to the compactness, robustness and strength of the pouch as taught by Brooker.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar as applied to claims 1-9 and 11- 14 above, and further in view of Bouniol et al. (US 2019/0048288), hereinafter “Bouniol.”
Regarding claim 16, Sankar teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sankar teaches that the unit dose composition is used in a domestic laundering process (see page 1, lines 31-33). Sankar, however, fails to disclose the step of diluting between about 200 and about 3000 fold the unit dose with water to make a wash liquor.
It is known from Bouniol, an analogous art, that a water-soluble unit dose article, wherein the water-soluble unit dose article comprises a water-soluble film and a laundry detergent composition is diluted with water by a factor of between 300 and 3000 fold to create a main wash liquor and is used for contacting the fabrics to be laundered with the wash liquor (see paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have diluted the water-soluble pouch of Sankar within those recited because it known from Bouniol that a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a laundry detergent composition is diluted with water by a factor of between 300 and 3000 fold to create a main wash liquor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,946,022, or claim 15 U.S. Patent No. 12,365,855, each in view of Sankar.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-14, each of US ‘022 or US ‘855 teaches similar water-soluble unit dose articles comprising water-soluble films and liquid laundry detergent compositions, the liquid compositions comprising similar ingredients with overlapping proportions and similar ethoxylated secondary alcohols having overlapping carbon atoms and overlapping average degree of ethoxylation (see claim 15 in each of US ‘022 or US ‘855), differing only in that each of US ‘022 or US ‘855 fails to disclose the specific anionic surfactant, like alkylbenzenesulfonate and/or alkyl sulfate, the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, i.e., 1:1 to 5:1, and the liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between about 1% and about 20% by weight of water as recited in claim 1; the primary alcohol nonionic surfactant made via a process like oxo process as recited in claim 7; the weight ratio of the alkylbenzenesulfonate and alkyl sulfate as recited in claim 9; and the incorporation of fatty acid as recited in claim 11.
Sankar, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Sankar teaches a unit dose composition comprising anionic surfactant (see abstract), wherein the anionic surfactant comprises alkyl sulfate and alkylbenzene sulfonate, among others, and mixtures thereof (see page 3, lines 26-34; page 4, lines 23-25 and 33-34). Sankar also teaches that the composition comprises from 0 to 5% wt. water (see claim 3); and in Table 2, Example 3, Sankar teaches a laundry composition which comprises 5.000 wt% fatty acid (see Table 2 on page 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected alkylbenzenesulfonate and alkyl sulfate as the specific anionic surfactants in the liquid laundry detergent composition of US ‘022 or US ‘855 because these are typical anionic surfactants in a similar composition as taught by Sankar. With respect to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, even though Sankar is silent as to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, when used as a mixture, 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 each of the alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. 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 alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the ethoxylate nonionic surfactants, considering that US ‘022 or US ‘855 teaches from about 15% to about 55% by weight of anionic surfactant and from about 2.5% to about 30% by weight of alkoxylated nonionic surfactant, 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., 15wt% anionic:15 wt% nonionic or 1:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated water, like 1 wt%, and fatty acid, like 5 wt%, into the liquid laundry detergent composition of US ‘022 or US ‘855 because these are some of the suitable ingredients which can be added to the liquid laundry detergent composition as taught by Sankar.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/116,356 in view of Sankar.
Copending US ‘356 teaches a similar water-soluble unit dose article comprising water-soluble film and liquid laundry detergent composition comprising similar ethoxylated secondary alcohols having overlapping carbon atoms and overlapping average degree of ethoxylation and differing only in that copending US ‘356 fails to disclose the incorporation of an anionic surfactant, wherein the anionic surfactant is alkylbenzenesulfonate and/or alkyl sulfate, the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, i.e., 1:1 to 5:1, and the liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between about 10% and about 40% by weight of nonaqueous solvent which comprises 1,2-propanediol as recited in claim 1; the weight ratio of the alkylbenzenesulfonate and alkyl sulfate as recited in claim 9; the incorporation of fatty acid as recited in claim 11; the nonaqueous solvent further comprising glycerol as recited in claim 13; and the water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol as recited in claim 14.
Sankar, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Sankar teaches a unit dose composition comprising anionic surfactant (see abstract), wherein the anionic surfactant comprises alkyl sulfate and alkylbenzene sulfonate, among others, and mixtures thereof (see page 3, lines 26-34; page 4, lines 23-25 and 33-34), and the weight ratio between the anionic and the nonionic surfactant is from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3 (see claim 5). Sankar also teaches that non-aqueous carriers may be present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 20% by weight based on the total weight of the composition and preferred are monopropylene glycol (or 1,2-propanediol) and glycerol (see page 6, lines 31-35). Sankar also teaches in Table 2, Example 3, a laundry composition which comprises 5.000 wt% fatty acid (see Table 2 on page 14). Sankar also teaches that the laundry composition is contained within a pouch formed by a water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film (see page 8, lines 5-16; claim 8).
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 anionic surfactant like alkylbenzenesulfonate and alkyl sulfate in the liquid laundry detergent composition because these are typical anionic surfactants in a similar composition as taught by Sankar. With respect to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, even though Sankar is silent as to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, when used as a mixture, 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 each of the alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. 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 alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the ethoxylate nonionic surfactants, considering that Sankar teaches that the weight ratio between the anionic and the nonionic surfactant is from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3 , 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., 1:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated non-aqueous solvents like monopropylene glycol (or 1,2-propanediol) and glycerol, in amounts like 20 wt%, and fatty acid, like 5 wt%, into the liquid laundry detergent composition because these are some of the suitable ingredients which can be added to the liquid laundry detergent composition as taught by Sankar.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the water-soluble film of copending ‘356 to comprise water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film because this is the preferred water-soluble film used for the pouch as taught by Sankar.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/116,369 in view of Sankar.
Copending ‘369 teaches a similar water-soluble unit dose article comprising water-soluble film and liquid laundry detergent composition comprising similar ethoxylated secondary alcohols having overlapping carbon atoms and overlapping average degree of ethoxylation. Copending ‘369, however, fails to disclose the amount of the ethoxylated secondary alcohol, the incorporation of an anionic surfactant, wherein the anionic surfactant is alkylbenzenesulfonate and/or alkyl sulfate, the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, i.e., 1:1 to 5:1, and the liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between about 10% and about 40% by weight of nonaqueous solvent which comprises 1,2-propanediol and between about 1% and about 20% by weight of water as recited in claim 1; the weight ratio of the alkylbenzenesulfonate and alkyl sulfate as recited in claim 9; the incorporation of fatty acid as recited in claim 11; the nonaqueous solvent further comprising glycerol as recited in claim 13; and the water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol as recited in claim 14.
Sankar, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Sankar teaches a unit dose composition comprising anionic surfactant (see abstract), wherein the anionic surfactant comprises alkyl sulfate and alkylbenzene sulfonate, among others, and mixtures thereof (see page 3, lines 26-34; page 4, lines 23-25 and 33-34), and the weight ratio between the anionic and the nonionic surfactant is from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3 (see claim 5). Sankar also teaches that the secondary alcohol ethoxylate is from about 5% wt. to about 60% wt. of the total composition (see page 2, lines 29-35); water is from 0 to 5% wt. (see claim 3); and that non-aqueous carriers may be present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 20% by weight based on the total weight of the composition and preferred are monopropylene glycol (or 1,2-propanediol) and glycerol (see page 6, lines 31-35). Sankar also teaches in Table 2, Example 3, a laundry composition which comprises 5.000 wt% fatty acid (see Table 2 on page 14). Sankar also teaches that the laundry composition is contained within a pouch formed by a water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film (see page 8, lines 5-16; claim 8).
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 the secondary nonionic surfactant in amounts within those recited because a similar secondary alcohol ethoxylate in a similar composition is from about 5% wt. to about 60% wt. of the total composition as taught by Sankar, and selecting the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 10-20wt%) have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness,
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated anionic surfactant like alkylbenzenesulfonate and alkyl sulfate in the liquid laundry detergent composition because these are typical anionic surfactants in a similar composition as taught by Sankar. With respect to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, even though Sankar is silent as to the weight ratio of the alkylbenzene sulfonate to the alkyl sulfate, when used as a mixture, 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 each of the alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. 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 alkylbenzene sulfonate and the alkyl sulfate through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding the weight ratio of the anionic surfactant to the ethoxylate nonionic surfactants, considering that Sankar teaches that the weight ratio between the anionic and the nonionic surfactant is from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3 , 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., 1:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated water, like 1 wt%, non-aqueous solvents like monopropylene glycol (or 1,2-propanediol) and glycerol, in amounts like 20 wt%, and fatty acid, like 5 wt%, into the liquid laundry detergent composition because these are some of the suitable ingredients which can be added to the liquid laundry detergent composition as taught by Sankar.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the water-soluble film of copending ‘369 to comprise water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film because this is the preferred water-soluble film used for the pouch as taught by Sankar.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/116,512 in view of Sankar.
Copending ‘512 teaches a similar water-soluble unit dose article comprising water-soluble films and liquid laundry detergent compositions comprising similar water-soluble unit dose article comprising water-soluble film and liquid laundry detergent composition, and similar processes of laundering fabrics, the liquid composition comprising similar ingredients with overlapping proportions and similar ethoxylated secondary alcohols having overlapping carbon atoms and overlapping average degree of ethoxylation. Copending ‘512, however, fails to disclose the liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between about 1% and about 20% by weight of water as recited in claim 1; the incorporation of fatty acid as recited in claim 11; and the water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol as recited in claim 14.
Sankar, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Sankar teaches that the composition comprises from 0 to 5% wt. water (see claim 3). Sankar also teaches in Table 2, Example 3, a laundry composition which comprises 5.000 wt% fatty acid (see Table 2 on page 14). Sankar also teaches that the laundry composition is contained within a pouch formed by a water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film (see page 8, lines 5-16; claim 8).
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 water, like 1 wt%, and fatty acid, like 5 wt%, into the liquid laundry detergent composition of copending “512 because these are some of the suitable ingredients which can be added to the liquid laundry detergent composition as taught by Sankar.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the water-soluble film of copending ‘512 to comprise water soluble polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer film because this is the preferred water-soluble film used for the pouch as taught by Sankar.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Sankar, the primary reference, Applicant argues the showing on pages 13-14 where Example 1 and Example 2 (formulated according to current claims which showed thickening properties upon dilution) with Comparative Example E shows that even a single variable, such as the average degree of ethoxylation, can result in opposite rheological behaviors.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims. It is only true for the specific components in their respective proportions. Also it is noted that Comparative Example B which comprises 15 wt% Marlipal 1216/7 (primary alcohol having C12-16 alkyl chain with average degree of ethoxylation of 7) and Comparative Example C which comprises 15 wt% Surfonic L24-9 (primary alcohol having C12-14 alkyl chain with average degree of ethoxylation of 9) also showed the thickening properties like those of Examples 1-2. Hence, the showing does not appear to be unexpected.
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