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 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, 3, 4, 8, 16, 17, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (CN 109153949) in view of Hayes (US 2018/0051418), as evidence by WO8002364 and High production of fumaric acid from xylose by newly selected strain Rhizopus arrhizus RH 7-13-9# - PubMed.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 17 and 23
Cook discloses a washing agent presentation form, comprising an outer packaging (51) in the form of a folding cardboard box (see page 7) having a bottom surface (defined by bottom of the box), a top surface and side walls connecting the bottom surface and the top surface (see figure 2c and page 7); and cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies (21) in a sorted arrangement within the outer packaging (see figure 2c). Cook appears to disclose the fill level of the outer packaging to be between 85 to 99 volume%. However, Cook does not explicitly disclose the fill level of the packaging. Cook does not disclose outer the cardboard of the folding cardboard box is coated or impregnated with a biodegradable hydrophobic coating comprising a vegetable oil, a plant wax, an animal wax, a lignin, a lignin derivative, a cellulose, a cellulose derivative, polylactic acid, or a polylactic acid derivative, and the cardboard of the folding cardboard box has a Cobb value below 30 g/m2. Regarding the limitation of the percentage of the outer packaging fill level, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cook having the required fill level of the outer packaging to maximize the storing and transportation space of the outer package. Regarding the limitation of the carboard box coated with the biodegradable hydrophobic coating, and the required Cobb value, Hayes discloses barrier compositions are known to be applied to cardboard containers to impart resistance to moisture (see [0049]), wherein after the barrier composition is applied, the paper/carboard material can exhibit a Cobb value of 20 g/m^2 or less (see [0057]). Hayes further discloses the barrier compositions could be fumaric acid (see [0021] and [0028]). It is known that fumaric acid is a biodegradable hydrophobic (see WO8002364 page 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cardboard of the outer packaging of Cook having the barrier compositions as taught by Hayes for further protection against moisture to the detergent tablets disposed within the outer packaging. Regarding the limitation of the hydrophobic coating comprises vegetable oil, a plant wax, an animal wax, a lignin, a lignin derivative, a cellulose, a cellulose derivative, polylactic acid, or a polylactic acid derivative, it is known that fumaric acid is commonly produced of lignocellulosic biomass which contains lignin. It is known that fumaric acid is produced from lignocellulosic materials (see High production of fumaric acid from xylose by newly selected strain Rhizopus arrhizus RH 7-13-9# - PubMed, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hydrophobic coating, such as fumaric acid, produced from lignocellulosic because it is common and nominal the production of fumaric acid through lignocellulosic materials.
Claim 8
Cook further discloses each of the cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies is covered by a film/cover (see page 2).
Claim 22
Cook further discloses each of the cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies has a lower face, an upper face, and a lateral face connecting the lower face and the upper face, and the lower face of each of the cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies rests directly on and plane-parallel to the bottom surface of the outer packaging (see figures 1c and 2c). Cook also discloses the detergent tablet/capsule has the same shape and size as the cover, wherein the capsule could have dimensions of height of 1.5-2.5 cm and a transversal/diagonal dimension between 3-5 cm (see page 3 “capsule size”), wherein 5cm is more than twice 1.5 cm.
Claims 2, 9-15, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (CN 109153949) and Hayes (US 2018/0051418) as applied to any of claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Barthel (WO 2004/046297).
Claims 2, 14 and 15
Cook does not disclose the cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies having a rough upper face or a rough lower face. However, Barthel a tablet cleaning agent wherein a tablet surface, top or bottom, could be more or less rough depending on the composition and manufacture of the base tablets so that adhesive application to the top of the tablet could be technically difficult (see page 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detergent tablet of Cook having an average roughness, in either the top or bottom surface, i.e. between 50µm to 800µm, since it is an obvious mater of design choice the surface roughness, depending on the tablet composition and manufacture.
Claims 9, 10, 20 and 21
Cook does not disclose the material used to enclose the cuboidal washing agent. However, Barthel discloses detergent tablets enclosed within a film, preferably made from single material comprising polyvinyl alcohol, wherein polyvinyl alcohol is known to be toxicologically safe, biodegradable (see pages 33 and 34), and water soluble (see page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary packaging of Cook being made from a polyvinyl alcohol film as taught by Berthel for toxicologically safe and biodegradable purposes of the secondary package.
Claim 11
Cook further discloses the cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies covered by a secondary package/cover. Cook does not disclose the cuboid detergent shaped bodies not covered by a film. However, Barthel discloses a cuboid shaped detergent tablets disposed within the interior of a plastic film (see abstract), wherein the film/envelope is opened at side ends of the cuboid detergent shaped body not covering the ends by the film (see figure 1b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary packaging of Cook not covering the ends by the film/being opened at ends of the cuboid shaped detergent tablets as taught by Barthel for reducing the materials of the secondary package used for enclosing the detergent tablets.
Claims 12 and 13
Cook does not disclose the cuboidal washing agent shaped bodies having the required water absorption and the required volume expansion above/over 5, 7, 8, or 18 vol% at 2 weeks, 35°C, and 80% relative humidity. However, Barthel discloses a cuboid shaped detergent body comprising a film including a disintegration aid based on polyvinylpyrrolidone or cellulose which is known to be a water-soluble polymer with rapid disintegration of the tablets when mixed with water increasing the volume of the tablet (see pages 22, 23 and 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary packaging of Cook having the film including the disintegration aids, such as polyvinylpyrrolidone or cellulose, as taught by Barthel for quick and easy disintegration of the film when mixed with water. Regarding the limitation of the specific water absorption and volume expansion of the detergent tablets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the cuboid detergent tablet having any of the required water absorption depending on the desired disintegration of the detergent tablets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 8-17, 20 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection. Regarding applicant’s argument of the teachings of Hayes, the examiner disagrees. The barrier composition applied to cardboard containers is fumaric acid which is a biodegradable hydrophobic coating. Further, it is known that fumaric acid is commonly produced of lignocellulosic biomass which contains lignin (see abstract from: High production of fumaric acid from xylose by newly selected strain Rhizopus arrhizus RH 7-13-9# - PubMed).
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736