Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-9-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Naqvi (2020/0263114).
Examples 7-8 and cl. 28 exemplify the claims with respect to the dissolution time, the claims would inherently dissolve in the timeframe given they teach and require each of the claimed ingredients. Accordingly, the claims are therefore anticipated.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naqvi (2020/0263114).
Naqvi is relied upon as set forth above. Specifically, Naqvi does not teach with sufficient specificity the temperature of the solvent water. However, at 0152, Naqvi teaches that the powder formulation is solvated with water and it appears that at room temperature one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made, would consider that the temperature would equate to at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit and encompass the water temperature as claimed to dissolve the tablets in a spray formulation with a bottle and lid as claimed.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski et al (20230049070).
Piorkowski et al disclose formulations for dissolvable solid unit dose toilet cleaning compositions containing an anionic surfactant, a carbonate or bicarbonate salt, a water-soluble filler and an organic acid, wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to filler is 1:6 to 5:1. The filler includes clay, a sugar or a salt. The solid unit dose can be a tablet or compressed solid that engages with a wand to clean a toilet. The solids dissolve and can be flushed after use (abstract). Piorkowski et al further teach the anionic surfactant is selected from Sodium Dodecyl benzenesulfonate, Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate, Sodium Olefin Sulphonate, and combinations thereof (0020); the organic acid consists of glycolic acid or citric acid and the cleaning composition comprises about 5-20% by weight of a carbonate or bicarbonate salt (0024-0025). In addition, Piorkowski et al teach A solid unit dose refers to a cleaning composition unit sized so that the entire unit is used during a single cleaning cycle. When the solid cleaning composition is provided as a unit dose, it is preferably provided as a compressed solid, such as a tablet having a size of between about 1 gram and about 50 grams. Furthermore, it should be appreciated that the solid cleaning composition can be provided so that a plurality of the solids will be available in a package having a size of between about 40 grams and about 1,000 grams (0069). The filler can be, for example, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, sodium hydrogen carbonate, potassium hydrogen carbonate, sodium acetate, potassium acetate, sodium citrate, potassium citrate, sodium tartrate, potassium tartrate, potassium sodium tartrate, calcium lactate (0099). The fragrance may be an oil fragrance, an essential oil, botanical extracts, synthetic fragrance materials, or other compounds that provide a desirable odor (0129). The cleaning composition can include water-soluble binder. Those having a having a weight average molecular weight less than 200,000 will typically be more readily soluble in water. Many water-soluble binders are known. The water-soluble binder may be oligomeric or polymeric materials such as carboxymethyl celluloses, hydroxypropyl cellulose starches, polyethylene oxides, polyacrylamides, polyacrylic acids, cellulose ether polymers (0147). Examples of glidants that may be used include colloidal silicon dioxide, talc, tribasic calcium phosphate, hydrophobic colloidal silica, hydrophobic fumed silica (0156). Working examples discuss dissolution rate in tap water from 0.09-0.15g/m in examples 1 and 2.
Piorkowski et al do not teach that dissolution rate or the temperature of the water from 40-150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Piorkowski et al teach that the toilet cleansing solids are utilized in toilet water from tap and therefore would be at room temperature at most for a given time, therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that 68 degrees Fahrenheit is a temperature utilized within the concepts of his invention (0178 and 0184).
With respect to the dissolution rate of less than 5 min, the examiner contends that claims when read in the broadest reasonable interpretation do not suggest an amount of the claimed composition is dissolved. With Piorkowski speaking to dissolving said solid within minutes it would have been obvious to the skill artisan that 0.09g/min reads on the broadly claimed “dissolves over a period of less than 5 min”.
[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 1-9-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase overcomes the prior art of record.
The examiner contends and respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to MPEP 2111.03 where it is held that CEO limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976). Applicant then has the burden of proving to the contrary. In addition, for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention."). See also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1240-41, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Conclusion
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