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 August 5, 2025. Claims 1-10 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raehse, US 2009/0215664.
Raehse teaches a detergent granule containing an optional coating which may be a precipitated calcium carbonate (¶118 and 125). The physical properties of the PCC are not disclosed. As PCC is manufactured by a chemical process, it has a higher purity as it is manufactured under controlled conditions, ensuring a uniform composition, well-defined particle shape, and a much finer particle size than ground calcium carbonate obtained from natural sources. This is common knowledge. The examiner maintains that PCC is a known material and its manufacture is well-known to persons of skill in the art and so it will inherently possess the properties claimed, or at the very least be obvious to the skilled formulator. It is not inventive to list physical properties of PCC as if they were somehow unknown to persons of skill in the art when PCC has been known as a detergent granule flow aid for over 20 years. Applicants were invited to explain if there was something unusual about their PCC over PCC well known in the art but no such explanation was given in their reply.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not disclose the surface area and particle size of the PCC and so should not be used. A simple Google search for the particle size and surface area of PCC yields answers of from 3 to 5 microns and 15 to 30 g/m2 respectively. US 2022/0273524 uses PCC in cosmetics and skin care compositions and teaches a particle size of from 0.8 to 8 microns (¶76) and a surface area of from 4 to 30 g/m2 (¶80). This reference is relied upon merely to answer applicants’ arguments and demonstrate that the PCC properties claimed by applicants are the same PCC properties known to all. It is known to use PCC with detergents, and the properties of the PCC are well known and so the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al, WO 2021/052901.
Sarkar et al teach a detergent granule containing a flow aid which may be a precipitated calcium carbonate (claims 1 and 9). The physical properties of the PCC are not disclosed. As PCC is manufactured by a chemical process, it has a higher purity as it is manufactured under controlled conditions, ensuring a uniform composition, well-defined particle shape, and a much finer particle size than ground calcium carbonate obtained from natural sources. This is common knowledge. The examiner maintains that PCC is a known material and its manufacture is well-known to persons of skill in the art and so it will inherently possess the properties claimed, or at the very least be obvious to the skilled formulator. It is not inventive to list physical properties of PCC as if they were somehow unknown to persons of skill in the art when PCC has been known as a detergent granule flow aid for over 20 years. Applicants were invited to explain if there was something unusual about their PCC over PCC well known in the art but no such explanation was given in their reply.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not disclose the surface area and particle size of the PCC and so should not be used. A simple Google search for the particle size and surface area of PCC yields answers of from 3 to 5 microns and 15 to 30 g/m2 respectively. US 2022/0273524 uses PCC in cosmetics and skin care compositions and teaches a particle size of from 0.8 to 8 microns (¶76) and a surface area of from 4 to 30 g/m2 (¶80). This reference is relied upon merely to answer applicants’ arguments and demonstrate that the PCC properties claimed by applicants are the same PCC properties known to all. It is known to use PCC with detergents, and the properties of the PCC are well known and so the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhanuka et al, US 5,929,021.
Dhanuka et al teach a detergent granule containing up to 85% surfactant (col. 5, lines 66-67), from 0.1 to 15% of a flow aid which may be a precipitated calcium carbonate (col. 6, lines 8-14). The physical properties of the PCC are not disclosed. As PCC is manufactured by a chemical process, it has a higher purity as it is manufactured under controlled conditions, ensuring a uniform composition, well-defined particle shape, and a much finer particle size than ground calcium carbonate obtained from natural sources. This is common knowledge. The examiner maintains that PCC is a known material and its manufacture is well-known to persons of skill in the art and so it will inherently possess the properties claimed, or at the very least be obvious to the skilled formulator. It is not inventive to list physical properties of PCC as if they were somehow unknown to persons of skill in the art when PCC has been known as a detergent granule flow aid for over 20 years. Applicants were invited to explain if there was something unusual about their PCC over PCC well known in the art but no such explanation was given in their reply.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the reference does not disclose the surface area and particle size of the PCC and so should not be used. A simple Google search for the particle size and surface area of PCC yields answers of from 3 to 5 microns and 15 to 30 g/m2 respectively. US 2022/0273524 uses PCC in cosmetics and skin care compositions and teaches a particle size of from 0.8 to 8 microns (¶76) and a surface area of from 4 to 30 g/m2 (¶80). This reference is relied upon merely to answer applicants’ arguments and demonstrate that the PCC properties claimed by applicants are the same PCC properties known to all. It is known to use PCC with detergents, and the properties of the PCC are well known and so the rejection is maintained.
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