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 February 2, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-11 are currently amended. Claims 12-20 are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1, line 6; claim 8, line 2, claim 9, line 2; and claim 20, line 5, it is suggested that “compressed” before “particulate premixture” be deleted
b) in claim 6, line 4, it is suggested that the phrase “the another layer” be replaced with “the other layer”
c) in claim 7, line 4, it is suggested that “higer” be replaced with “higher” and “the another layer” be replaced with “the other layer”
d) in claim 11, line 7; and claim 13, line 1, it is suggested that “printed” be replaced with “printable”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The imitations in claim 12, lines 1-2, i.e., “wherein the particulate premixture is pressed with a compression pressure above 1 kN/cm2 to form the washing agent tablet” and the phrase “such that the film at least partially covers the printed region” in claim 14, lines 1-2 are nowhere supported in the original specification, hence, considered as new matter.
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 1-11, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mick (DE 19955240 A1; already of record, whose English translation will be used for citation purposes).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 15-17 and 20, Mick teaches a process for the production of laundry and other detergent tablets by pressing one or more detergent compositions, and the resultant tablets are printed by an ink-jet process (see abstract; claim 1), and the markings to be applied can be any letters or lettering or the like such as product names, or company name or logo, and wherein the printing can be done by one or more colors such as dyes (see page 2, 5th-8th full paragraphs). The tablets are single or multiphase molded articles (see page 2, 3rd full paragraph), preferably at least two phases (see claim 11). The dyes can be applied to both colorless (white) and colored surfaces (see page 3, 1st full paragraph), which suggests that one phase or layer has a higher whiteness degree than another phase or layer. The detergent tablets contain common ingredients such as surfactants, builders like zeolites, silicates and carbonates; and disintegrators based on cellulose like carboxymethyl cellulose (see page 3, 4th full paragraph; page 6, 2nd full paragraph and page 10, 6th full paragraph). In addition to the above ingredients, additional optical brighteners and fluorescent agents can be included (see page 11, 3rd full paragraph). The optical brighteners can also be placed directly in the detergent tablets (see page 12, 6th full paragraph). The tablets are produced from the above ingredients in the form of a particulate premix containing surfactant-containing granules, prior to the pressing step, and the granules, have particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns, presumably 100 wt% of the particles (see page 13, 3rd and 4th full paragraphs, and claim 10). Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose the particulate premix containing surfactant-containing granules having a particle size between 100 and 900 microns as recited in claims 1-2, 11 and 20, between 200 and 800 microns, and between 250 and 750 microns as recited in claims 3-4, respectively; at least 90% of a surface of the printable phase outside a printed region having a degree of whiteness as recited in claims 1, 11 and 20; and the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region being above 20, above 40 or above 60 as recited in claims 1, 15 and 16, respectively.
Considering that Mick teaches particulate premix containing surfactant-containing granules having particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns, 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., a particle size between 100 and 900 microns, between 200 and 800 microns, or between 250 and 750 microns) 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).
With respect to the degree of whiteness of the printable phase outside a printed region, considering that Mick teaches that the dyes can be applied to colorless (white) surfaces of the tablet, 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 colorless (white) surfaces of the tablet, outside the marking or printing, to have a degree of whiteness within those recited because similar white surface have been utilized, hence would have similar properties.
With respect to the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region, 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 color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region to be within those recited, absent evidence of criticality, because Mick teaches that the printing dyes, i.e., colored dyes, can be applied on a white surface of the tablet, whose white surface has a degree of whiteness within those recited as discussed above, hence, the color difference would also overlap.
Regarding claim 6, Mick teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mick teaches that it is preferred, for example, in multiphased tablets, to have a partial or complete omission of the disintegrators or disintegration aids in one individual phase to control release of the active ingredients, and preferably at least 90% by weight of the disintegration aids have particle sizes between 300 and 1600 microns, in particular between 400 and 1200 microns (see page 10 last paragraph to page 11, 2nd full paragraph), which suggests the particle sizes of the premix in that individual phase. As discussed above, the particulate premix containing surfactant-containing granules have particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns (see page 13, 3rd and 4th full paragraphs, and claim 10) which suggests the particle sizes of the other individual phase of the multiphased tablets. Hence, the two layers, have different particle sizes based on the above teachings. Also, as discussed above, the tablets are multiphase molded articles (see page 2, 3rd full paragraph), preferably at least two phases (see claim 11), and the dyes can be applied to both colorless (white) and colored surfaces (see page 3, 1st full paragraph), which presumably can be on the top and/or bottom surfaces of the tablets. Hence, the dyes can be applied to the layer having the lower particle sizes.
Regarding claim 10, Mick teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mick teaches that the tablet can comprise (co)polymeric polycarboxylates like acrylic acid or methacrylic acid with maleic acid, which are organic acids, which can be used from 0.5 to 20% by weight, in particular 3 to 10% by weight (see page 8, last paragraph to page 9, 1st full paragraph). Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose less than 10 wt% of an organic acid.
Considering that Mick teaches (co)polymeric polycarboxylates like acrylic acid or methacrylic acid with maleic acid in an amount from 0.5 to 20% by weight, 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., 0.5 to less than 10 wt%) 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 18, as discussed above, Mick teaches that the detergent tablets contain common ingredients such as builders like zeolites, silicates and carbonates (see page 3, 4th full paragraph; page 6, 2nd full paragraph). Mick further teaches that the amount of the builder, i.e., at least one active ingredient, e.g., zeolites, silicates or carbonates, is usually between 10 and 70 wt% (see page 10, 2nd full paragraph). Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose from 5-60 wt% of at least one active ingredient, e.g., zeolites, silicates or carbonates, based on the total weight of the tablet.
Considering that Mick teaches between 10 and 70 wt% builders like zeolites, silicates or carbonates, 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., 10-60 wt%) 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 1-11, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse et al. (DE 19925503 A1, already of record, whose English translation will be used for citation purposes), hereinafter “Kruse” in view of Mick (already of record, whose English translation will be used for citation purposes).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 15-17 and 20, Kruse teaches two-phase or multi-phase detergent tablets made of compressed particulate detergent comprising surfactant(s), builders, optical brightener(s), dye(s) and, the content of the optical brightener is different in the individual phases of the shaped body (see claim 1), preferably one layer is free of optical brightener (see page 3, 6th full paragraph). The detergent tablets contain builders especially zeolites, silicates and carbonates (see page 6, last full paragraph), and disintegrants based on cellulose like carboxymethyl cellulose (see page 6, 1st full paragraph). Kruse also teaches a method for manufacturing the above detergent tablets by known compression of different particulate premixes which contain different amounts of optical brighteners in the individual premixes (see page 16, 3rd full paragraph). The particulate premixes have particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns, presumably 100 wt% of the particles (see page 16, 6th full paragraphs, and claim 14). In Inventive Example 1, Kruse teaches a 2-phase or two layered detergent tablet, wherein Layer 1 comprises zeolite, cellulose, and no dye nor optical brightener and Layer 2 comprises zeolite, cellulose, 0.06 wt% dye and 1.25 wt% optical brightener, and wherein Layer 2 shows a higher degree of whiteness when compared with a 2-layered tablet in the Comparative Example, wherein Layer 1 and Layer 2 each comprises the same amount of optical brightener, i.e., 0.30 wt% each, and wherein the disintegration time of the 2-layered tablet in Inventive Example 1 is better than the Comparative Example (see page 19, last 3 paragraphs, Table 2 of original document). Kruse, however, fails to specifically disclose the tablet having a printed region or the step of printing the tablet, wherein at least 90% of a surface of the printable phase outside a printed region having a degree of whiteness as recited in claims 1, 11 and 20; and the particulate premix having a particle size between 100 and 900 microns as recited in claims 1-2, 11 and 20, between 200 and 800 microns, and between 250 and 750 microns as recited in claims 3-4, respectively; and the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region being above 20, above 40 or above 60 as recited in claims 1, 15 and 16, respectively.
Mick, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Mick teaches a process for the production of similar laundry and other detergent tablets by pressing one or more detergent compositions, and the resultant tablets are printed by an ink-jet process (see abstract; claim 1), and the markings to be applied can be any letters or lettering or the like such as product names, or company name or logo, wherein the printing can be done by one or more colors such as dyes (see page 2, 5th-8th full paragraphs), wherein the tablets are single or multiphase molded articles (see page 2, 3rd full paragraph), preferably at least two phases (see claim 11) and wherein the dyes can be applied to both colorless (white) and colored surfaces (see page 3, 1st full paragraph). The ink-jet printing of the tablets provide the consumer not only with a typical and distinctive product but also tablets having a higher stability (see page 1, 3rd full paragraph of the Description through page 2, 2nd full paragraph; page 15, 5th full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have printed the multi-phase detergent tablet of Kruse, in particular, Layer 2 comprising the optical brighteners, and having a high degree of whiteness, because this will provide the consumer not only with a typical and distinctive product but also tablets having a higher stability as taught by Mick. Even though Kruse does not explicitly disclose the numerical value of the degree of whiteness of Layer 2, 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 Layer 2 of Kruse to have a degree of whiteness within the values as those recited because similar tablet having a high degree of whiteness have been utilized, hence would have similar degree of whiteness values.
Regarding the particle sizes of the particulate premixes, considering that Kruse teaches particulate premixes having particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns, 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., a particle size between 100 and 900 microns, between 200 and 800 microns, or between 250 and 750 microns) 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).
With respect to the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region, 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 color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region to be within those recited, absent evidence of criticality, because the printing dyes, i.e., colored dyes, of Mick have been applied on the surface of the tablet of Kruse which has a high degree of whiteness, hence, the color difference would also overlap.
Regarding claim 6, Kruse in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Kruse teaches disintegrants based on cellulose like carboxymethyl cellulose (see page 6, 1st full paragraph). In addition, Kruse teaches that at least 90% by weight of the disintegrants have particle sizes between 300 and 1600 microns, in particular between 400 and 1200 microns (see page 10 last paragraph to page 11, 2nd full paragraph) which suggests the particle sizes of the premix in at least one the phases of the multiphased tablet . As discussed above, the particulate premixes have particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns, (see page 16, 6th full paragraphs, and claim 14), which suggests the particle sizes of the other phase of the multiphased tablets. Hence, the two layers, have different particle sizes based on the above teachings, and as discussed above, the dyes can be applied to the layer having the higher degree of whiteness, which may also have the lower particle sizes.
Regarding claim 10, Kruse in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Kruse teaches that the tablet can comprise (co)polymeric polycarboxylates like acrylic acid or methacrylic acid with maleic acid, which are organic acids, which can be used from 0.5 to 20% by weight, in particular 3 to 10% by weight (see page 9, last full paragraph to page 19, line 1). Kruse in view of Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose less than 10 wt% of an organic acid.
Considering that Kruse in view of Mick teaches (co)polymeric polycarboxylates like acrylic acid or methacrylic acid with maleic acid in an amount from 0.5 to 20% by weight, 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., 0.5 to less than 10 wt%) 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 18, as discussed above, Kruse teaches that the detergent tablets contain builders especially zeolites, silicates and carbonates (see page 6, last full paragraph). Kruse further teaches that the amount of the builder, i.e., at least one active ingredient, e.g., zeolites, silicates or carbonates, is usually between 10 and 70 wt% (see page 11, 2nd full paragraph). Kruse in view of Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose from 5-60 wt% of at least one active ingredient, e.g., zeolites, silicates or carbonates, based on the total weight of the tablet.
Considering that Kruse in view of Mick teaches between 10 and 70 wt% builders like zeolites, silicates or carbonates, 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., 10-60 wt%) 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 1-11, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puebla et al. (WO 00/58432, already cited in PTO-892 dated 09/02/2025), hereinafter “Puebla” in view of Mick (already of record, whose English translation will be used for citation purposes).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 15-17 and 20, Puebla teaches washing-active or cleaning-active shaped forms, for example detergent tablets or dishwashing agent tablets which are treated with a brightener pigment comprising (a) a water-insoluble urea-formaldehyde resin and (b) a water-soluble fluorescent whitening agent for the purpose of improving the appearance of detergents, of compounds thereof, and of individual raw materials (see abstract; page 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs). The above brightener pigment can, in principle, be used for whitening detergents or cleaners on its own or together with other pigments like titanium dioxide (see page 13, 2nd full paragraph after Table 1). In the Application Example, Puebla teaches the preparation of a tablet as follows: 100 g of a detergent formulation having an improved appearance are prepared by using 1.481 g of the white pigment prepared in Example 1, i.e., urea-formaldehyde condensation polymer/whitening agent suspension (see entire page 16), 98.51 g of ECE detergent formulation and from 50 to 60 ml of deionized water, after mixing and drying, the detergent formulation has the desired particle size of 0.315 to 0.9 mm (equivalent to 315 to 900 microns), and after conditioning, at least 5.5 g of the prepared detergent formulation is compressed to form a tablet which showed a high degree of whiteness (see page 18, last full paragraph to page 20, last line). Puebla, however, fails to specifically disclose the tablet having a printed region or the step of printing the tablet, wherein at least 90% of a surface of the printable phase outside a printed region having a degree of whiteness as recited in claims 1, 11 and 20; the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region being above 20, above 40 or above 60 as recited in claims 1, 15 and 16, respectively; and the particulate premix having a particle size between 200 and 800 microns, and between 250 and 750 microns as recited in claims 3-4, respectively;
Mick, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Mick teaches a process for the production of similar laundry and other detergent tablets by pressing one or more detergent compositions, and the resultant tablets are printed by an ink-jet process (see abstract; claim 1), and the markings to be applied can be any letters or lettering or the like such as product names, or company name or logo, wherein the printing can be done by one or more colors such as dyes (see page 2, 5th-8th full paragraphs), wherein the tablets are single or multiphase molded articles (see page 2, 3rd full paragraph), preferably at least two phases (see claim 11) and wherein the dyes can be applied to both colorless (white) and colored surfaces (see page 3, 1st full paragraph), which suggests that one phase or layer has a higher whiteness degree than another phase or layer. The detergent tablets contain common ingredients such as surfactants, builders like zeolites, silicates and carbonates; and disintegrators based on cellulose like carboxymethyl cellulose (see page 3, 4th full paragraph; page 6, 2nd full paragraph and page 10, 6th full paragraph).. The ink-jet printing of the tablets provide the consumer not only with a typical and distinctive product but also tablets having a higher stability (see page 1, 3rd full paragraph of the Description through page 2, 2nd full paragraph; page 15, 5th full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have printed the tablet of Puebla because this will provide the consumer not only with a distinctive product but also tablets having a higher stability as taught by Mick. Even though Puebla does not explicitly disclose the numerical value of the degree of whiteness of the tablet, 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 tablet of Puebla to have a degree of whiteness within the values as those recited because similar tablet having a high degree of whiteness have been utilized, hence would have similar degree of whiteness values.
Regarding the particle sizes of the particulate premixes, considering that Puebla teaches particle sizes of 315 to 900 microns 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., a particle size between 315 and 800 microns, or between 315 and 750 microns) 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).
With respect to the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region, 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 color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region to be within those recited, absent evidence of criticality, because the printing dyes, i.e., colored dyes, of Mick have been applied on the surface of the tablet of Puebla which has a high degree of whiteness, hence, the color difference would also overlap.
Regarding claims 5-6, Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mick teaches multiphased tablets and it is preferred, for example, in multiphased tablets, to have a partial or complete omission of the disintegrators or disintegration aids in one individual phase to control release of the active ingredients, and preferably at least 90% by weight of the disintegration aids have particle sizes between 300 and 1600 microns, in particular between 400 and 1200 microns (see page 10 last paragraph to page 11, 2nd full paragraph), which suggests the particle sizes of the premix in that individual phase.
Regarding claim 10, Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mick teaches that the tablet can comprise (co)polymeric polycarboxylates like acrylic acid or methacrylic acid with maleic acid, which are organic acids, which can be used from 0.5 to 20% by weight, in particular 3 to 10% by weight (see page 8, last paragraph to page 9, 1st full paragraph). Puebla in view of Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose less than 10 wt% of an organic acid.
Considering that Mick teaches (co)polymeric polycarboxylates like acrylic acid or methacrylic acid with maleic acid in an amount from 0.5 to 20% by weight, 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., 0.5 to less than 10 wt%) 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 18, Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Mick teaches that the detergent tablets contain common ingredients such as builders like zeolites, silicates and carbonates (see page 3, 4th full paragraph; page 6, 2nd full paragraph). Mick further teaches that the amount of the builder, i.e., at least one active ingredient, e.g., zeolites, silicates or carbonates, is usually between 10 and 70 wt% (see page 10, 2nd full paragraph). Puebla in view of Mick, however, fails to specifically disclose from 5-60 wt% of at least one active ingredient, e.g., zeolites, silicates or carbonates, based on the total weight of the tablet.
Considering that Mick teaches between 10 and 70 wt% builders like zeolites, silicates or carbonates, 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., 10-60 wt%) 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick as applied to claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Garner-Gray et al. (EP 0,481,793), hereinafter “Garner-Gray.”
Regarding claim 12, Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick, however, fails to disclose the compression pressure above 1 kN/cm2 to form the washing agent tablet.
It is known from Garner-Gray, an analogous art, that detergent compositions in tablet form suitable for washing fabrics in a washing machine (see abstract) may be produced using compaction pressures ranging from 0.01 to 50 kN/cm2, especially from 0.02 to 10 kN/cm2 (see page 6, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced the tablets of Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick using a compaction pressure within those recited because it is known from Garner-Gray that a typical compaction pressure rages from 0.02 to 10 kN/cm2. As to the specific compaction pressure, 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., 1 to 10 kN/cm2) 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick as applied to claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Duncan (US 2002/0028758).
Regarding claim 13, Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick, however, fails to disclose the printable region being printed on the at least part of the surface of the tablet at a print resolution from 120 dpi to 360 dpi.
It is known from Duncan, an analogous art in cleaning tablets (see abstract), that the surface of the tablets are printed at a print resolution of 180 dpi (see [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have printed at least part of the surface of the tablet of Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick at a print resolution of 180 dpi because this is the typical print resolution as taught by Duncan.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick as applied to claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Jaworski et al. (US 2011/0127271), hereinafter “Jaworski.”
Regarding claim 14, Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick, however, fails to disclose wrapping the printed tablet with a film.
It is known from Jaworski, an analogous art in fabric care or dishwashing compositions (see [0018]) that tablets are wrapped in an outer wrapper, especially a water soluble outer wrapper to protect the products from moisture (see [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wrapped the tablet of Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick in a water soluble outer wrapper to protect the products from moisture as taught by Jaworski.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick as applied to claims 1-11, 15-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Beers et al. (US 2003/0176309), hereinafter “Beers.”
Regarding claim 19, Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick teaches the features as discussed above. Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick, however, fails to disclose the tablet having a density from 1.1 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3.
It is known from Beers, an analogous art in laundry detergent composition (see abstract) that the overall density of a tablet for fabric washing is preferably at least 1100 gm/litre (or 1.1 g/cm3) up to 1400 gm/litre (i.e., 1.4 g/cm3) (see [0133]).
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 tablet of Mick, or Kruse in view of Mick or Puebla in view of Mick to have a density within those recited because it is known from Beers that a typical tablet for fabric washing has a tablet density of at least 1.1 g/cm3 up to 1.4 g/cm3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Mick, Applicant argues that Mick does not disclose what percentage of the surfactant-containing granules are present in the particulate premix and that a particle size between 100 and 2000 microns does not correspond to the recited particle size between 100 µm and 900 µm.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because the other ingredients of the detergent and cleaning agent in Mick like bleaching agents or bleach activators, are not required ingredients (see page 13, 5th full paragraph), hence, the majority of the particulate premix in Mick are the surfactant-containing granules having particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns (see page 13, 4th full paragraph). As discussed in the previous office action, and which is repeated above, the selection of the overlapping ranges, i.e., 100-900 microns 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).
Applicant further argues that Mick does not disclose that at least 90% of the unprinted region has a degree of whiteness defined in the claim and also does not disclose the recited color difference (ΔE) between the printed region and the unprinted region being above 20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because, as discussed in paragraph 8 above, with respect to the degree of whiteness of the printable phase outside a printed region, considering that Mick teaches that the dyes can be applied to colorless (white) surfaces of the tablet, 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 colorless (white) surfaces of the tablet, outside the marking or printing, to have a degree of whiteness within those recited because similar white surface have been utilized, hence would have similar properties. With respect to the color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region, 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 color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region to be within those recited, absent evidence of criticality, because Mick teaches that the printing dyes, i.e., colored dyes, can be applied on a white surface of the tablet, whose white surface has a degree of whiteness within those recited as discussed above, hence, the color difference would also overlap.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Kruse in view of Mick, Applicant argues that Kruse does not disclose what percentage of the surfactant-containing granules are present in the particulate premix and that a particle size between 100 and 2000 microns does not correspond to the recited particle size between 100 µm and 900 µm.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because the other ingredients of the detergent and cleaning agent in Kruse like bleaching agents or bleach activators, are not required ingredients (see page 16, last full paragraph), hence, the majority of the particulate premix in Kruse are the surfactant-containing granules having particle sizes between 100 and 2000 microns (see page 16, 6th full paragraph). As discussed in the previous office action, and which is repeated above, the selection of the overlapping ranges, i.e., 100-900 microns 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).
Applicant further argues that Kruse in view Mick does not disclose that at least 90% of the unprinted region has a degree of whiteness defined in the claim and there is no definition of “high degree of whiteness” in Kruse. Applicant also argues that Examples E1-E4 of the present application exhibit a degree of whiteness on their surfaces in which L*max is in the range of from 98 to 100, a*max is in the range of from -1 to +1, and b*max is in the range of from +1 to
-1; and paragraph [0169] of the present published application (US 2024/0010958) explains that the “printed image had a sharp contour, and this remained even after storage.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because in Table 2 (see page 15 of the original document in DE ‘503), in the Inventive Example, Layer 1 has 0% brightener while Layer 2 has 1.25 wt% brightener and Layer 2 of Inventive Example has a higher degree of whiteness than Layer 1 and the Comparative Example. While the degree of whiteness of the Layer 2 tablet in Kruse were not defined by the CIELAB color space as those recited in the claim, 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 Layer 2 of Kruse to have a degree of whiteness within the values as those recited because similar tablet having a high degree of whiteness have been utilized. While the tablets, in the specification, in Examples E1-E4 which were prepared from particulate premixture where 90% of the particles had a particle size between 100 microns and 900 microns, showed a degree of whiteness defined in the CEILAB space as recited above, the showing has not been compared with Mick or Kruse in view of Mick, the close prior art of record to make meaning conclusions of unexpected results.
Applicant also argues that Kruse in view of Mick does not disclose the recited color difference (ΔE) between the printed region and the unprinted region being above 20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because as discussed in paragraph 9 above, 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 color difference between the printed region and the unprinted region to be within those recited, absent evidence of criticality, because the printing dyes, i.e., colored dyes, of Mick have been applied on the surface of the tablet of Kruse which has a high degree of whiteness, hence, the color difference would also overlap.
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
Prosecution Insights