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 .
Claim Objections
The claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 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. Each list recites all possibilities (linear or branched or a mixture; there are no other possibilities) (natural, synthetic, or a mixture; there are no other possibilities) and so do not further limit for that reason. 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
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 5-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keuleers (US 2017/0226447 A1, hereafter “Keuleers”) in view of Ogura et al. (US 2013/0172227) in view of Bator et al. (U.S. 5,403,516).
With regard to Claims 1, 5, and 8, Keuleers discloses a water-soluble unit dose article comprising of liquid laundry detergent composition, wherein such water-soluble unit dose article comprises a water-soluble film ([0001]-[0003]).
Keuleers disclose wherein the composition comprises secondary alcohol ethoxylates, especially the C8-C20 aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 50 or even 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol, and more especially the C10-C15 primary and secondary aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 10 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol ([0053]) and non-soap anionic surfactants selected from linear alkylbenzene sulphonate, alkyl sulphate, alkoxylated alkyl sulphate or a mixture thereof ([0045]). While Keuleers is silent to the exact wt% of the nonionic surfactant, Keuleers discloses the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is 5:1 and 15:1, wherein the anionic surfactant is between 30% and 43% by weight ([0037]-[0038]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the wt% of nonionic surfactant to be about 2% and about 9% by weight. The claims have been amended to be outside this range. However, [0037-0038] indicates that these ranges are merely preferable and not exclusive. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, as in the instant case. MPEP 2144.05.I. One skilled in the art would have expected the composition of Keuleers to have the same properties. Further, it has been held that differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Still further, Bator demonstrates that detergent compositions may have anionic surfactants and nonionic surfactants each in a range of 5-30% and that the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant may be 1:1-9:1 (col. 2, lines 4-11).
Modified Keuleers discloses wherein the secondary alcohol ethoxylates have an average of from 1 to 50 or even 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol ([0053]).
Keuleers teaches that the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant may be a primary AND secondary alcohol ethoxylates of C8-C20 ([0053]) but does not suggest a specific ratio between them. Ogura explicitly teaches that the nonionic surfactant of a liquid detergent composition (Title, [0003]) may preferably be a mixture of ethoxylated secondary alcohol to ethoxylated primary alcohol in a preferable ratio of 70-100% secondary to 30-0% primary for the gelling, dilution, and usability characteristics [0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the instant application to have used Ogura’s mixture of ethoxylated secondary alcohol to ethoxylated primary alcohol nonionic surfactant in a ratio of 70-100% as the particular combination of primary and secondary alcohol ethoxylated nonionic surfactants of Keuleers for the gelling, dilution, and usability characteristics.
With regard to Claim 6, the limitations cover all possibilities.
With regard to Claim 7, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the non-ionic surfactant is selected from a fatty alcohol alkoxylate, an oxo-synthesized fatty alcohol alkoxylate, Guerbet alcohol alkoxylates, alkyl phenol alcohol alkoxylates or a mixture thereof ([0052]).
Claims 6 and 7 are product by process claims. Please note that the patentability of a product does not depend upon the method of production. “If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process” (see, e.g. MPEP § 2113). Further, Keuleers teaches a Guerbet process [0052].
With regard to Claim 9, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition comprises anionic surfactants selected from linear alkylbenzene sulphonate, alkyl sulphate, alkoxylated alkyl sulphate or a mixture thereof ([0045]), which can be in the form of salts (i.e., neutralized) [0049].
With regard to Claim 11, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition may comprises a fatty acid or salt thereof ([0039]).
With regard to Claim 12, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition comprises between 0.5% and 20% of water ([0040]).
With regard to Claim 13, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition comprises 1,2-propanediol and dipropylene glycol is between 5% and 25% by weight ([0034]).
With regard to Claim 14, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the film is soluble or dispersible in water and comprises at least one polyvinyl alcohol or a copolymer thereof ([0059]).
With regard to Claim 15, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the water-soluble film is formed into a pouch comprising with at least two internal compartments [0024]. If there are two compartments, the pouch may be oriented so that one is on top and another is on bottom. Other side-by-side orientations are contemplated [0024-0026].
With regard to Claim 16, modified Keuleers a process of washing fabrics comprising the steps of contacting the unit dose article with water such that the liquid laundry detergent composition is diluted in water by at least 400-fold to form a wash liquor, and contacting fabrics with said wash liquor ([0014]).
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, 5-9 and 11-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/752,914 (reference application) in view of Keuleers (US 2017/0226447). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same invention of a water-soluble unit dose article comprising of a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry detergent wherein the water-soluble film comprises of at least one compartments and comprises of polyvinyl alcohol, and wherein the liquid laundry detergent comprises of ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant, wherein the ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant the weight of the non-ionic surfactant, the same anionic surfactant, water and the amount of water, and a non-aqueous solvent and weight of the non-aqueous solvent. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, as in the instant case. MPEP 2144.05.I. The claims of ‘914 do not recite the alkyl chain length and average degree of ethoxylation, but Keuleers teaches that suitable nonionic surfactants for liquid detergents in water-soluble dose articles include C8-C20 aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 50 or even 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol, and more especially the C10-C15 primary and secondary aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 10 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used these ranges of alkyl chain length and average degree of ethoxylation as the particular surfactants of ‘914 because they are known surfactants for liquid detergents. Regarding the proportion of secondary to primary alcohol ethoxylates, ‘914 claims mixtures of the two (claim 2). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
Claim 9: ‘914 teaches linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (claim 1). Keuleers teaches that these may be supplied for liquid detergents in neutralized form as salts [0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used neutralized linear alkylbenzene sulphonate as the particular form of the sulphonate of ‘914 because it is a known form of sulphonate surfactant for liquid detergents.
Claim 15: Keuleers teaches that a water-soluble unit dose detergent article may have multiple compartments [0024-0028].
Claim 16: Keuleers teaches 400-fold dilution in use [0014].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 11-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/752,887 (reference application) in view of Keuleers (US 2017/0226447). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same invention of a water-soluble unit dose article comprising of a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry detergent wherein the water-soluble film comprises of at least one compartments and comprises of polyvinyl alcohol, and wherein the liquid laundry detergent comprises of ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant, wherein the ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant the weight of the non-ionic surfactant, the same anionic surfactant, water and the amount of water, and a non-aqueous solvent and weight of the non-aqueous solvent. The claims of ‘914 do not recite the alkyl chain length and average degree of ethoxylation, but Keuleers teaches that suitable nonionic surfactants for liquid detergents in water-soluble dose articles include C8-C20 aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 50 or even 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol, and more especially the C10-C15 primary and secondary aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 10 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used these ranges of alkyl chain length and average degree of ethoxylation as the particular surfactants of ‘914 because they are known surfactants for liquid detergents. Regarding the proportion of secondary to primary alcohol ethoxylates, ‘887 claims mixtures of the two (claim 3). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
Claim 9: ‘914 teaches linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (claim 1). Keuleers teaches that these may be supplied for liquid detergents in neutralized form as salts [0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used neutralized linear alkylbenzene sulphonate as the particular form of the sulphonate of ‘914 because it is a known form of sulphonate surfactant for liquid detergents.
Claim 15: Keuleers teaches that a water-soluble unit dose detergent article may have multiple compartments [0024-0028].
Claim 16: Keuleers teaches 400-fold dilution in use [0014].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 11-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/116,382 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same invention of a water-soluble unit dose article comprising of a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry detergent wherein the water-soluble film comprises of at least one compartments and comprises of polyvinyl alcohol, and wherein the liquid laundry detergent comprises of ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant, wherein the ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant comprises of the same alkyl chain length and average degree of ethoxylation, the weight of the non-ionic surfactant, the same anionic surfactant, water and the amount of water, and a non-aqueous solvent and weight of the non-aqueous solvent. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/116,356 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same invention of a water-soluble unit dose article comprising of a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry detergent wherein the water-soluble film comprises of at least one compartments and comprises of polyvinyl alcohol, and wherein the liquid laundry detergent comprises of ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant, wherein the ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant comprises of the same alkyl chain length and average degree of ethoxylation, the weight of the non-ionic surfactant, the same anionic surfactant, water and the amount of water, and a non-aqueous solvent and weight of the non-aqueous solvent. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 USC 112(d) of claim 6 is overcome by amendment by changing “may be” to “is”. However, the previous action warned that “Even if the limitations were positively recited, each list recites all possibilities and would not further limit for that reason as well.” Each list continues to recite all possibilities.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the references by amending slightly outside the disclosure of Keuleers. The argument is unconvincing because generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Also, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, as in the instant case. MPEP 2144.05.I. Still further, newly cited Bator, col.2 , lines 4-11 show a larger range of operative concentrations and ratios that overlap obvious in the art.
Applicant argues that neither Keuleers nor Ogura do not relate to the problem the present application aims to solve. The argument is not relevant. They are analogous prior art because they are in Applicant’s field of endeavor. The question is not whether the instant composition would have been obvious for a particular problem of interest to the inventor, but merely whether it would have been obvious.
Applicant argues that there would have been no expectation of success given differing viscosity profiled. The argument is unconvincing because the art suggests that the compositions would have been suitable as detergents. To the extent that a process is taught, Keuleers expressly teaches cleaning fabrics with 400-fold dilution. One skilled in the art would have expected at least some degree of cleaning efficacy. That is all that is required.
Applicant argues that the specification shows unexpected results at least because the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which are not limited to the particular composition of example 1. Still further, applicant argues that the unexpected result is to avoid thickening. However, Examples A and D are outside the claimed invention and perform better in this regard than Example 1.
The ODP rejections have been slightly modified from the previous action based on the amendments.
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.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 9/2/25 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712