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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that “top” in line 3 should be “lid” for consistency. It appears that “cotaing” in line 6 should be “coating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2011/0278300 A1) and Bourgeois (US 2004/0076779 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-8. Ng Pak Leung discloses a container and at least one water-soluble unit dose article, comprising a water-soluble film and a detergent composition, inside the container, wherein the container has a lockable lid and the walls of the container comprise a paper material (i.e. a container for unit dose liquid detergent products comprising a lid and a base wherein said base and lid are co-operable to form a closed container and which is openable to access the contents by pulling them apart, said base and lid comprising a barrier coating) (abstract, [0007], [0047]-[0049] Fig. 1-3), wherein the water-soluble film may comprise polyvinyl alcohol polymer and may comprise a printed area and may comprise a bittering agent ([0031]-[0037]), wherein the container may comprise a barrier material (i.e. barrier coating)([0051]-[0054]).
Ng Pak Leung does not specifically disclose that at least 50% of the lid and/or base comprise a biodegradable material.
Sharma discloses a paper container that is fully biodegradable (i.e. overlapping at least 50% of the lid and/or base comprise a biodegradable material) ([0031]).
Ng Pak Leung and Sharma are analogous art because they both teach about containers comprising paper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the container of Ng Pak Leung fully biodegradable as taught by Sharma in order to provide a container with the advantage of being able to completely biodegrade and therefore being better for the environment.
Ng Pak Leung does not specifically disclose that the barrier coating comprises from 0.1 to 5% wt. of the container without the unit dose detergent products.
Bourgeois discloses a container comprising a barrier layer and that the barrier layer is approximately 1.5 wt% of the total container weight (i.e. overlapping the barrier coating comprises from 0.1 to 5% wt. of the container without the unit does detergent products)(abstract, [0019]).
Ng Pak Leung and Bourgeois are analogous art because they both teach about containers comprising barrier layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the barrier layer of modified Ng Pak Leung approximately 1.5 wt% of the total container weight as taught by Bourgeois because this is a known percentage of total container weight for barrier layers and in order to balance cost vs. barrier properties.
Regarding claim 2, Ng Pak Leung discloses that the barrier/secondary material may be polyvinyl alcohol (i.e. water based)([0054]). Given that polyvinyl alcohol is water soluble, it is the examiner’s position that it could be considered water-based. Alternatively, while there is no disclosure that the barrier is water-based, given that the present claims are directed to a final product where the water would be removed by curing (evaporated)(see instant specification at [0084]), it is the examiner’s position that the container of Ng Pak Leung would be indistinguishable from the container instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the container comprises a lid that may be hinged and comprises top and sidewalls and the sidewall of the lid may overlap with the base sidewall and may comprise a locking means such as a tab and an abutment or a slot and tab (i.e. a pair of opposing long walls each long wall having a pressable zone which is pressed to engage a child proof locking mechanism and enable the lid and base to be separated)([0042]-[0045], [0063], Fig 1-3).
It is the examiner’s position that given that the locking mechanism may be a tab and an abutment or a slot and tab it would be “a pressable zone which is pressed to engage a child proof locking mechanism and enable the lid and base to be separated” because it would be capable of being pressed to engage or disengage the locking mechanism. Further, given that the locking mechanism locks the container in the closed position and given that there is no mention of the age of the child and given that there is no specific definition of “child proof” in the instant specification, it is the examiner’s position that it would prevent opening by a child less than a year old.
Regarding claim 5, While there is no specific disclosure that the container has an average width from 9 to 15 cm, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to make the container any size, including having an average width from 9 to 15 cm as claimed depending on the end use of the container and how many unit dose products are desired to be packaged in the container and thereby arrive at the claimed width.
Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
Regarding claim 6, the container comprises a lid that may be hinged and comprises top and sidewalls and the sidewall of the lid may overlap with the base sidewall and may comprise a locking means such as a tab and an abutment or a slot and tab (i.e. a lid with a top sheet and two pairs of opposing walls attached thereto, and the base has a bottom surface which has two pairs of opposing walls attached thereto)([0042]-[0045], [0063], Fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Ng Pak Leung discloses that detergent composition may comprise less than 15% of water (i.e. overlapping wherein the unit dosed detergent products contain a detergent composition comprising from 5 to 15% wt. water)([0087]).
Regarding claim 8, Ng Pak Leung discloses that the unit dose products may comprise a bittering agent ([0037]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1), Sharma et al. (US 2011/0278300 A1) and Bourgeois (US 2004/0076779 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Qian et al. (US 2011/0028623 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ng Pak Leung teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ng Pak Leung does not disclose that the barrier coating comprises a thermoplastic elastomer.
Qian teaches a barrier layer for a container comprising a thermoplastic elastomer that provides flexibility and barrier properties (i.e. barrier coating comprises a thermoplastic elastomer)([0002], [0007], [0033]).
Ng Pak Leung and Qian are analogous art because they both teach about containers with barrier layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the thermoplastic barrier layer of Qian into the container of Ng Pak Leung in order to provide a container having the advantage of a barrier layer that provides both flexibility and barrier properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1), Sharma et al. (US 2011/0278300 A1) and Bourgeois (US 2004/0076779 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Oriakhi et al. (US 2018/0223119 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Ng Pak Leung teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ng Pak Leung does not disclose that the film comprises a phthalocyanine based pigment.
Oriakhi discloses a phthalocyanine pigment used in ink on a water soluble film of a unit dose detergent product to provide industry required labeling (i.e. film comprises a phthalocyanine based pigment)([0001]-[0003], [0042]).
Ng Pak Leung and Oriakhi are analogous art because they both teach about unit dose detergent product having printing thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the phthalocyanine pigment of Oriakhi to provide industry required labeling on the unit dose product of modified Ng Pak Leung in order to meet industry standards and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1), Sharma et al. (US 2011/0278300 A1) and Bourgeois (US 2004/0076779 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Olson et al. (US 2012/0053104 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12, Modified Ng Pak Leung teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ng Pak Leung does not disclose that the unit dose detergent products contain a detergent composition comprising a sequestrant, wherein the sequestrant is a phosphonic acid based sequestrant that is 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.
Olson discloses 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid as a component in unit dose detergent for reducing precipitation of calcium carbonate (i.e. sequestrant, phosphonic acid based sequestrant, 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid)([0048]-[0049], [0086]).
Ng Pak Leung and Olson are analogous art because they both teach about unit dose detergent products. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to incorporate the 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid of Olson into the detergent composition of Ng Pak Leung in order to reduce precipitation of calcium carbonate and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1), Sharma et al. (US 2011/0278300 A1) and Bourgeois (US 2004/0076779 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bressan et al. (WO 2016/198978 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the container comprises a lid that may be hinged and comprises top and sidewalls and the sidewall of the lid may overlap with the base sidewall and may comprise a locking means such as a tab and an abutment or a slot and tab (i.e. a pair of opposing long walls each long wall having a pressable zone which is pressed to engage a locking mechanism and enable the lid and base to be separated)([0042]-[0045], [0063], Fig 1-3).
Ng Pak Leung does not specifically disclose that the locking mechanism is child-proof.
Bressan discloses a container having a child-proof locking mechanism (abstract, Fig. 3).
Ng Pak Leung and Bressan are analogous art because they both teach about containers having a locking mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the child-proof locking mechanism of Bressan into the container of Ng Pak Leung in order to provide a container with the advantage of protecting children from the dangers of the contents of the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights