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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on October 8, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 8, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 29, line 1, the Structural Formula I is not legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The limitation “wherein the water-soluble unit dose article comprises water-soluble foam, a plurality of fibers and/or sheets forming a support structure” in lines 1-3 in claim 6; and the limitation “wherein the water-soluble unit dose article further comprises an active agent comprising one or more particles distributed throughout the support structure” in lines 1-3 in claim 7 are not supported in the specification. Please note that the specification on page 52, lines 9-13 recites:
As noted previously, articles in accordance with the present disclosure include
water-soluble foam, fibers or sheets. The water-soluble foam, fiber or sheet may
comprise a water-soluble fibrous structure and one or more particles distributed
throughout the structure. The water-soluble fibrous structure may comprise one or
a plurality of fibrous elements that are different from one another.
It is suggested that the limitations of claims 6 and 7 be incorporated into the appropriate portion of the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) the terms “Comprises” in lines 23, 25, 31, 33 and 36 should be re-written as “comprises”
b) “selected of” in line 27 should be re-written as “selected from”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite in the recital of “from about 10% by weight . . . of renewable carbon” in lines 7-9; and “from about 1% by weight . . . of biodegradable components” in lines 10-11 because “from” in the above phrases appears to recite a range of proportions, however, only the minimum range is recited and is missing the upper range. Or did Applicant only mean “about 10%...” or “about 1%..., ” respectively?
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitations “the individual ingredients pre-mixes or final formulations” in lines 10-11 (first occurrence), lines 15-16, 25-26, 31-32, 33-34, and 36-37. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Also, the phrase “the OECD 301B test” in line 12 lacks support in the claim. It is suggested that “the” before “OECD” be deleted.
Claims 2-8, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DePoot et al. (CA 3,081,510, already cited in IDS dated 07/23/2024), hereinafter “DePoot ‘510.”
Regarding claims 1-3, DePoot ‘510 teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between 1% and 20%, by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of water, and wherein the liquid laundry detergent composition comprises between 0ppm and 20ppm of dioxane (see page 2, lines 9-15), wherein the dioxane may comprise 1,2-dioxane, 1,3,dioxane, 1,4-dioxane, or a mixture thereof (see page 3, lines 3-4).
Regarding claims 4-5, DePoot ‘510 further teaches that the liquid laundry detergent composition is in the form of a water-soluble unit dose article, and the water-soluble unit dose article comprises a water-soluble film (see page 2, lines 16-18).
DePoot ‘510 teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, DePoot ‘510 anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delaney et al. (US 2020/0140784), hereinafter “Delaney.”
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8, Delaney teaches low pH detergent compositions comprising renewable or biobased components (see ¶ [0001] and [0012]), wherein the composition comprises from about 10% to about 100% by weight renewable components (biobased) (see ¶ [0023]). In Example 2, Delaney teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition which comprises 6.8 wt% C11.8 HLAS (anionic surfactant), 10.8 wt% NI C24-EO9 (nonionic surfactant), 1.0 wt% C12/14 amine oxide nonionic surfactant, 14.0 wt% citric acid, 0.1 wt% acetic acid, 10.0 wt% biobased propylene glycol (i.e., a total of 43.7 wt% carbon containing ingredients), 1.3 wt% sodium hydroxide and balance DI water, i.e., 55.0 wt%, and this example has a biobased composition level greater than 50% according to ASTM D6866 (see Table 3 and ¶ [0087] and [0089]), i.e., greater than 50% renewable carbon (see ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claims 3-5, Delaney teaches in some aspects that the composition can be in a unit dose form, i.e., the composition is encapsulated in a water-soluble film or pouch (see ¶ [0021]), and comprises less than about 20 wt% water, or less than about 10 wt% water, or less than about 5 wt% water (see [0022]).
Delaney teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Delaney anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watson (US 2022/0154100).
Regarding claims 1-5, Watson teaches in Example 2, a unit dose laundry packet using PVA (polyvinyl alcohol) film, i.e., a water-soluble film (see ¶ [0056]), and encapsulated therein, a liquid laundry concentrated cleaning composition comprising 1 wt% purified water, 15 wt% biobased propylene glycol, 55.97 wt% naturally derived alcohol ethoxylate, 13 wt% sodium fatty acid methyl ester sulfonate, among others (see ¶ [0068]-[0069] and Tables 1-2; see also ¶ [0006]), and wherein the total organic carbon of the concentrated cleaning composition is greater than or equal to 90% bio-based, or even greater than or equal to 95% bio-based, as determined according to ASTM D6866 for determining the total organic carbon based on the concentration of carbon 14 in the composition (see ¶ [0038]), and wherein the concentrated cleaning compositions may be substantially free of 1,4-dioxane, such as containing less than 1.0 ppm 1,4-dioxane or even less than 0.01 ppm 1,4-dioxane by weight based on the total weight of the concentrated cleaning composition (see ¶ [0014]). Watson teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Watson anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DePoot et al. (US 2021/0395655), hereinafter “DePoot ‘655.”
The applied reference has a common Applicant (i.e., The Procter & Gamble Company) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-5, DePoot ‘655 teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry treatment composition (see ¶ [0011]), wherein the liquid laundry treatment composition, or any ingredients therein, each individually comprise between 0 ppm and 20 ppm dioxane (also known as 1,4 dioxane) (see ¶[0042]), and wherein the liquid laundry treatment composition comprises between 1% and 20%, by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of water (see ¶ [0043]). DePoot ‘655 teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, DePoot ‘655 anticipates the claims.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePoot ‘510 as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Denome et al. (US 2018/0216052), hereinafter “Denome.”
Regarding claims 6-7, DePoot ‘510 teaches the features as discussed above. DePoot ‘510, however, fails to disclose the water soluble unit dose article comprising a plurality of water-soluble fibers and/or sheets forming a support structure as recited in claim 6, wherein an active agent comprising one or more particles are distributed throughout the support structure as recited in claim 7.
Denome, an analogous art, teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent (see ¶ [0006]), wherein said configuration provides better dissolving and better cleaning (see ¶ [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized, as the specific water-soluble unit dose article in DePoot ‘510, the water soluble unit dose article of Denome which comprises water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent, because such article provides better dissolving and better cleaning as taught by Denome.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePoot ‘510 as applied to claims 1-5 above.
Regarding claim 8, DePoot ‘510 teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, DePoot ‘510 teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between 1% and 20%, by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of water (see page 2, lines 9-15). DePoot ‘510, however, fails to disclose greater than 20% by weight of water.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (greater than 20 wt% vs 20 wt%) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney as applied to claims 1-5 and 8 above, and further in view of Denome.
Regarding claims 6-7, Delaney teaches the features as discussed above. Delaney, however, fails to disclose the water soluble unit dose article comprising a plurality of water-soluble fibers and/or sheets forming a support structure as recited in claim 6, wherein an active agent comprising one or more particles are distributed throughout the support structure as recited in claim 7.
Denome, an analogous art, as discussed above, teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent (see ¶ [0006]), wherein said configuration provides better dissolving and better cleaning (see ¶ [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized, as the specific water-soluble unit dose form in Delaney, the water soluble unit dose article of Denome which comprises water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent, because such article provides better dissolving and better cleaning as taught by Denome.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Denome.
Regarding claims 6-7, Watson teaches the features as discussed above. Watson, however, fails to disclose the water soluble unit dose article comprising a plurality of water-soluble fibers and/or sheets forming a support structure as recited in claim 6, wherein an active agent comprising one or more particles are distributed throughout the support structure as recited in claim 7.
Denome, an analogous art, as discussed above, teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent (see ¶ [0006]), wherein said configuration provides better dissolving and better cleaning (see ¶ [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized, as the specific water-soluble unit dose packet in Watson, the water soluble unit dose article of Denome which comprises water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent, because such article provides better dissolving and better cleaning as taught by Denome.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claims 1-5 above.
Regarding claim 8, Watson teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Watson teaches that the concentrated cleaning composition can include a total amount of water from all sources combined in a range of from 5 wt. % to 20 wt. % based on the total weight of the concentrated cleaning composition (see ¶ [0036]). Watson, however, fails to disclose greater than 20% by weight of water.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (greater than 20 wt% vs 20 wt%) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePoot ‘655 as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Denome.
Regarding claims 6-7, DePoot ‘655 teaches the features as discussed above. DePoot ‘655, however, fails to disclose the water soluble unit dose article comprising a plurality of water-soluble fibers and/or sheets forming a support structure as recited in claim 6, wherein an active agent comprising one or more particles are distributed throughout the support structure as recited in claim 7.
Denome, an analogous art, as discussed above, teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent (see ¶ [0006]), wherein said configuration provides better dissolving and better cleaning (see ¶ [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized, as the specific water-soluble unit dose article in DePoot ‘655, the water soluble unit dose article of Denome which comprises water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure, wherein the water-soluble fibrous structure comprises a plurality of fibrous elements and wherein each of said particles comprises a surfactant, i.e., an active agent, because such article provides better dissolving and better cleaning as taught by Denome.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePoot ‘655 as applied to claims 1-5 above.
Regarding claim 8, DePoot ‘655 teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, DePoot ‘655 teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising between 1% and 20%, by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of water (see ¶ [0043]). DePoot ‘655, however, fails to disclose greater than 20% by weight of water.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (greater than 20 wt% vs 20 wt%) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
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