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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, the amendment filed June 19, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 3/26/26 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-17 and 20 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2022/122177.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘177 teaches a granule, that comprises a coating agent, a polysaccharide absorbent, 0.02-25 wt-% Mn(II) oxalate, and 0.1-25 wt-% of a salt which is the same as recited by the instant claims. See page 4. Examples of preferred compounds L used in the salt are 1 ,4, 7-triazacyclononanes, 1,4, 7-triazacyclododecanes, 1,4,8-triazacyclododecanes, 1,4,7-trimethyl-1,4,7-triazacyclononanes and 1,4,7-trimethyl-1,4,7-triazacyclododecanes. See page 14. However, it may not be necessary to include a coating material, which is essential to prevent undesired degradation of the Mn(II) oxalate according to the first aspect of the invention, but which is not necessarily present in the granules according the second aspect of the invention. See page 16, lines 10-25. The coating agent, present in the granules of the first aspect of the invention and optionally present in the granules of the second aspect of the invention, comprises a water -soluble polymer, preferably polyvinyl alcohol or derivatives of polyvinyl alcohol. The coating material used in the granules of this invention may form a coating enveloping one or more of ingredients of the granules and/or may form a coating enveloping the granules. Preferably the granules of the invention are covered with a protective layer or coating. In another preferred embodiment the Mn(II) oxalate is covered with a coating. See page 18, lines 1-10.
The granules according to the invention contain at least one polysaccharide absorbent which is present in amounts between 2 and 95 wt-%, preferably between 5 and 60 wt-% and most preferred between 10 and 50 wt-%, wherein the percentages refer to the total amount of the granule. See page 19, lines 25-35. Most suitable as processing additive is a starch, which is a polymer of glucose in which the glucopyranose units are bonded by a-linkages. Suitable sources of starch are potato starch, maize starch, rice starch, wheat starch and partially pregellatinised starches from the aforementioned list. Alternatively, the processing additive may be a modified starch, such as dextrin, a gum or alginate. Most suitably, the processing additive is maize starch, potato starch or rice starch. Also particularly suitable are cellulosic materials, such as cellulose fibers, methyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, or carboxy-modified celluloses, such as carboxylmethyl cellulose (CMC). Most suitable is cellulose, in particularly microcrystalline cellulose (e.g. Heweten 101 ). See pages 20 and 21.
The water-soluble polymer that may be included in the granules encompassing the monoprotonated, diprotonated or triprotonated cyclic triamine ligand salt according to the first or second aspect of the invention, includes poly(vinylpyrrolidones), polyalkylene glycols, functionalised poly(vinylalcohol)s and polyacrylates. The water-soluble polymer may be present in the coating and/or in the bulk of the granule. Examples of preferred polyvinyl alcohols or of modified polyvinyl alcohols are given above when disclosing preferred embodiments of the coating. These preferred (modified) polyvinyl alcohols can also be used in the bulk of the granule.
In an embodiment, the granules comprise between 0.1 and 20 wt-% of the water-soluble polymer. See page 21, lines 15-30. In one embodiment the granule according to the invention contains at least one of the additional ingredients selected from the group consisting of a watersoluble polymer; a filler; a salt; and a bleach activator; and wherein these ingredients are present in the following amounts: 0-20 wt-% of a water-soluble polymer 0-85 wt-% of a filler; 0-85 wt-% of an inorganic salt; 0-90 wt-% of a bleach activator; wherein the percentages refer to the total amount of the granule. Additional manganese salts that may be use include Mn(ll)(acetate)2 , Mn(lll)(acetate)3, etc. See page 30, lines 1-25. The granules may be added to bleach compositions which may be used for automatic dishwashing. See pages 32-35. Specifically, ‘177 teaches a granule containing 2.43% by weight of Mn(II)di-(acetate), 2.43% by weight of a salt of formula [H2L](HSO4)2, 14.55% by weight of corn starch, 77.6% TAED, 3% by weight of polyvinyl alcohol which may be used as a coating. This granule is used in a automatic dishwashing composition containing sodium percarbonate, etc. See pages 43-45. ‘177 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘177 anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 102 using WO2022/122177, Applicant states that '177 merely discloses manganese(II) acetate as one of several optional manganese salts that may be present in a separate composition used together with the ligand-salt granules of the second embodiment and that WO'177 does not disclose a granule containing both manganese(II) acetate and the claimed ligand salt, nor does WO'177 suggest replacing the Mn(II) oxalate of the first embodiment with manganese(II) acetate while maintaining the remaining features of the granule. Additionally, Applicant states that ‘177 does not disclose the presently claimed composition in which manganese(II) acetate and the ligand salt are incorporated into the same granule or tablet.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘177 specifically teaches teaches a granule containing 2.43% by weight of Mn(II)di-(acetate), 2.43% by weight of a salt of formula [H2L](HSO4)2, 14.55% by weight of corn starch, 77.6% TAED, 3% by weight of polyvinyl alcohol which may be used as a coating, wherein this granule as specifically taught by ‘177 would clearly fall within the scope of the instant claims. Additionally, ‘177 clearly teaches that this granule is used in a automatic dishwashing composition containing sodium percarbonate which is in the form of a tablet, etc. (See pages 43-45 or ‘177). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘177 are sufficient to anticipate the claimed invention under 35 USC 102.
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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights