DETAILED ACTION
VACATE PREVIOUS OFFICE ACTION
The previous office action filed 12/1/2025 is vacated
The period for reply of 3 Months set in said Office Action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter
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 .
Response to Amendments
Claim 1, 13-15 were amended, claim 5 was canceled, claim 16 is new. Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached).
With respect to claim 1, Ng discloses a container for unit dose liquid detergent pouches, said container comprising a lid (4) and a base (3), wherein said base and top lid are co-operable so as to form a closed container and which is openable to access the contents by pulling them apart, said lid comprising paper (page 3 [0047])), said container comprising a plurality of unit dosed detergent products and wherein said base comprises paper (page 3 [0047]).
Ng failed to disclose of a base paper with with a weight average cellulose fibre length of from 1 to 5 millimeter (mm), and a lid paper with a with a weight average cellulose fibre length of at least 2mm. Ring and Bacon does not disclose fibre lengths. However, these values are inherent in products used for used for packaging in the paper industry (abstract of Ring and Bacon). In a similar field of endeavor, namely paper industry, Ring and Bacon demonstrate these values as commonly achieved in paper products (see Figures 1-2 and Tables I-III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of packaging before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include paper products with a length around 2 mm as taught by Ring and Bacon as the paper of Ng since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Ng teaches of using paper and adding a fibre length of at least 2 mm as taught by Ring and Bacon would maintain the same functionality of Ng, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container comprising a barrier coating (page 4 [0051]).
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container wherein the barrier coating comprises a water-based barrier coating. (PVA or other materials listed on page 4 [0054])
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for having an average width, an average length and an average height, wherein said average width is from 9 to 15 cm. However, it is considered as a change of shape of Ngs design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of specific dimensions is only a modification in the shape of the container of Ng and still provides the same results as Ng (i.e. storage of laundry detergent). Further, this can actually be seen as taught by Ng with respect to page 8 [0114].
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container wherein the lid (4) has a top sheet and two pairs of opposing walls (8 and opposite) attached thereto, and the base has a bottom surface which has two pairs of opposing walls attached thereto (12, 13).
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container wherein the unit dosed detergent products contain a detergent composition comprising from 5 to 15% wt. water. (page 6 [0087])
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container wherein the unit dosed detergent products comprise a bittering agent. (page 2 [0037])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached) and Oshita (US 20090297741 A1).
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the barrier coating comprises a thermoplastic elastomer. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely paper containers, Oshita taught of a container that uses thermoplastic elastomers as barrier coatings (page 10 [0091]) in order to provide excellent storage and preservation properties (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the barrier coating of Ng to include a thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Oshita in order to allow for excellent preservation.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached) and Cooke (US 20200283699 A1).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the unit dosed detergent products contain a detergent composition comprising a sequestrant. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely detergent pouches, Cooke taught of the usage of an sequestrant to stabilize a bleach component (page 9 [0152]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detergent of Ng to include a sequestrant as taught by Cooke in order to allow for stabilization of bleach.
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Cooke further teaches wherein the sequestrant is a phosphonic acid based sequestrant. See claim 11 rejection above for combination rationale. Phosphonic acid is specifically taught on page 9 [0152].
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container wherein said lid comprises from 80% weight. of the lid paper with a weight average cellulose fibre length of from 1 to 5mm and said base comprises from 80% wt. of the base paper with a weight average cellulose fibre length of at least 2mm. (page 4 [0055] states “Preferably, the paper-based laminate comprises greater than 50%, preferably greater than 85%, and more preferably greater than 95% by weight of the laminate of fibre-based materials”, it can be understood that achieving an exact weight % of 95 is well within the scope of Ng)
Examiner Note: Hayashi (US 20020074329 A1) teaches of materials tested specifically at 80% and 95% weight, when considering paper composition alone. Addtionally, “from 80” is determine to mean “at least 80”. The specification allows for said interpretation. A specific starting point of 80 is only considered a change in change of shape of Ngs design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses the container wherein said lid comprises from 95% wt. of the lid paper with a weight average cellulose fibre length of from 1 to 5mm and said base comprises from 95% weight. of the base paper with a weight average cellulose fibre length of at least 2mm. (page 4 [0055] states “Preferably, the paper-based laminate comprises greater than 50%, preferably greater than 85%, and more preferably greater than 95% by weight of the laminate of fibre-based materials”, it can be understood that achieving an exact wt % of 95 is well within the scope of Ng)
Examiner Note: Hayashi (US 20020074329 A1) teaches of materials tested specifically at 80% and 95% weight, when considering paper composition alone.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached) and Stenger (WO 2013162964 A1).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Ng further discloses wherein the unit dosed detergent products comprise a water-soluble film (page 1 [0002]). Ng failed to disclose wherein said film comprises a phthalocyanine based pigment. Ng does discuss the idea of the soluble film being opaque or having a printed area but doesn’t discuss the material composition of the printer medium. However, in a common field of endeavor, namely laundry detergent, Stenger taught of the use of phthalocyanine in laundry detergent (abstract), phthalocyanine being a commonly used pigment agent as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of laundry detergents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include phthalocyanine in the film as taught by Stenger in the detergent of Ng since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Ng teaches of a detergent pouch with a water soluble film and printed area and adding a pythalocyanine dye as taught by Stenger would maintain the same functionality of Ng, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached) and Bullivant (US 20220333046 A1).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the unit dosed detergent products contain a detergent composition comprising a sequestrant. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely detergent pouches, Bullivant taught of the usage of an sequestrant that was made to inhibit growth of calcium carbonate crystals (page 7-8 [0130]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detergent of Ng to include a sequestrant as taught by Bullivant in order to inhibit the growth of calcium carbonate crystals.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Bullivant further discloses wherein the sequestrant is selected from 1-hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid (HEDP) and salts thereof; N,N- dicarboxymethyl-2-aminopentane-1,5-dioic acid and salts thereof; 2-phosphonobutane- 1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid and salts thereof; or any combination thereof. See claim 11 rejection, above, for combination rationale. These specific sequestrants are taught on page 7-8 [0130] of Bullivant.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached) and Orozco (US 20140216957 A1).
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the container includes an absorbent pad at the bottom surface of the base under the plurality of unit dosed detergent products. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers for cleaning supplies, Orozco taught of a cleaning supply containers that included an absorbent pad (abstract) in order to catch any spillage from the cleaning supplies (page 2 [0017]). In the present invention, the Ng would benefit from any breakage of the detergent. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Ng to include an absorbent pad as taught by Orozco in order to allow for absorbance of any spillage from the detergent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Parker (US 20200063365 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ng (US 20210047072 A1) in view of Ring and Bacon (see paper attached).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20020074329-A1 OR US-20090297741-A1 OR US-20210047072-A1 OR US-20200283699-A1 OR US-20220333046-A1 OR US-20210164171-A1 OR US-20200063365-A1 OR US-20020094942-A1 OR US-20230166895-A1 OR WO-2013162964-A1 OR US-5662731-A OR US-12246897-B1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights