The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 12, 2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are currently amended.
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 2021/0121373) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it is suggested that “cleansing” be replaced with “cleaning” to be consistent with claim 12, line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2011/0028374), hereinafter “Fossum.”
Regarding claim 1, Fossum teaches a fabric and home care article comprising: from about 10% to about 75% surfactant; from about 0% to about 90% water soluble polymer; and optionally, from about 1% to about 15% plasticizer; wherein all the percentages are “by weight” of the article (see [0061], [0082] and [0097]), such that the article is in the form of a flexible porous dissolvable solid structure, wherein said article has a % open cell content of from about 80% to about 100% (see [0020]), or about 90% (see [0031]), wherein the article is in the form of one or more flat sheets (see [0104]), and wherein one of the preferred plasticizers is glycerin (see [0096]). Fossum, however, fails to specifically disclose, by weight of the sheet: from 55% to about 85% by weight of the water-soluble polymer, from about 1% to about 40% by weight of surfactant and from about 10% to about 40% by weight of glycerin and the sheet having an overall average pore size of from 100 µm to about 2000 µm.
Considering that Fossum teaches an article or sheet comprising from about 10% to about 75% surfactant; from about 0% to about 90% water soluble polymer; and from about 1% to about 15% plasticizer, preferably glycerin, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 55-85wt% water soluble polymer; 10-40wt% surfactant; 10-15wt% glycerin) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the article or sheet of Fossum to exhibit an overall average pore size within those recited because not only the article is flexible, dissolvable, and porous but also similar ingredients with overlapping proportions and having the same open cell content have been utilized, hence would have similar overall average pore sizes.
Regarding claim 2, Fossum teaches the features as discussed above. Fossum further teaches that the preferred water-soluble polymers include polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinylpyrrolidones, polyalkylene oxides, starch and starch derivatives, pullulan, gelatin, hydroxypropylmethylcelluloses, methycelluloses, and carboxymethycelluloses (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 3, Fossum further teaches that one of the preferred water-soluble polymer is polyvinyl alcohol (see [0087]) which has a molecular weight (MW) of 85,000-124,000 and a degree of hydrolysis of 87-89% (see [0133]).
Regarding claim 4, Fossum, as discussed above, teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of hydrolysis of 87-89% (see [0133]). Fossum further teaches that the one or more water-soluble polymers are selected such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 40,000 to about 500,000, and the weighted average molecular weight is computed by summing the average molecular weights of each polymer raw material multiplied by their respective relative weight percentages by weight of the total weight of polymers present within the porous solid (see [0081]). Fossum, however, fails to specifically disclose an additional polyvinyl alcohol that has a weight average molecular weight of from about 5,000 to about 100,000 Daltons and a degree of hydrolysis ranging from about 60% to about 99%; and wherein the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol ranges from about 0.1 to about 0.9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an additional polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight and degree of hydrolysis within those recited because Fossum specifically desires one or more water-soluble polymers such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 40,000 to about 500,000, the weighted average molecular weight is computed by summing the average molecular weights of each polymer raw material multiplied by their respective relative weight percentages by weight of the total weight of polymers present within the porous solid, hence, an additional polyvinyl alcohol having MW of 50,000 is envisaged. With respect to the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, while Fossum is silent as to their respective specific proportions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the two polyvinyl alcohols through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 5, Fossum, as discussed above, teaches from about 10% to about 75% by weight surfactant (see [0020]). Fossum further teaches that the surfactant is an anionic surfactant and on example includes alkyl ether sulfate, wherein the alkyl is from about 10 to about 16 carbon atoms (see [0065]). Fossum, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 2% to about 30% by weight of the anionic surfactant.
Considering that Fossum teaches from about 10% to about 75% by weight surfactant like an anionic surfactant, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., about 10% to about 30% by weight) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Fossum, as discussed above, teaches from about 1% to about 15% plasticizer (see [0020]), and wherein one of the preferred plasticizers is glycerin (see [0096]). Fossum, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 12% to about 30% of glycerin by weight of the article or sheet.
Considering that Fossum teaches from about 1% to about 15% plasticizer, preferably a glycerin, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., about 12% to about 15% by weight) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7-8, Fossum further teaches that the article has a Specific Surface Area of from about 0.02 m2/g to about 0.25 m2/g (see [0039]). Fossum, however, fails to specifically disclose a Specific Surface Area of from about 0.1 m2/g to about 0.18 m2/g.
Considering that Fossum teaches from about 0.02 m2/g to about 0.25 m2/g Specific Surface Area, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., about 0.1 m2/g to about 0.18 m2/g) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2021/0121373, already of record), hereinafter “Tan.”
Regarding claims 9-12, Fossum teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Fossum teaches that the article is in the form of one or more flat sheets (see [0104]), In addition, Fossum teaches that the article can be produced in any of a variety of product forms, including dissolvable porous solids used alone or in combination with other fabric and home care components (see [0103]). Fossum, however, fails to disclose a unitary article comprising two or more sheets and one or more solid dissolvable components located between the two sheets, wherein each of said one or more solid dissolvable components comprises a cleansing active as recited in claim 9, wherein the one or more solid dissolvable components comprises paste as recited in claims 10-11, and wherein the active is a fabric care active as recited in claim 12.
Tan, an analogous art, teaches a dissolvable solid article which comprises two or more flexible, porous, dissolvable sheets, and a coating composition comprising a surfactant which is present on at least one internal surface of at least one sheet in said solid article (see paragraph [0009], abstract; see also Figs. 8A and 8B). In addition, Tan teaches a coating composition comprising 58 wt% C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohol, 30.50 wt% perfume and 11.50 wt% silicon dioxide rheology modifier (see Table 14), hence the coating composition is a paste.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more sheets or articles of Fossum by incorporating into the at least one internal surface of at least one sheet, a coating composition in paste form which comprises a surfactant, because Fossum specifically desires a variety of product forms, and such incorporation of a paste between two sheets, is one product form as taught by Tan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection as discussed above.
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761