Response to Amendment
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 Interpretation
The invention is interpreted in claim 1 broadly as a solid cleansing composition comprising 1) a builder; 2) 5-50% of a foam stabilizer 3) an anionic OR amphoteric surfactant; and 4) a chelant/builder, all other components are optional. Claim 16, is interpreted as a solid cleansing composition comprising 1) sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate or sugar; 2) 5-50% of a foam stabilizer; 3) an anionic or amphoteric surfactant; 4) a hydrotropic additive; and all other ingredients are optional. Dependent process claims are relegated towards vehicle cleansing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 13-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Weber et al (20040029765).
Weber et al disclose a washing and cleaning agents which comprise cleaning agent components in the form of fine microparticles, better dispersibility, increased dissolution rate, more homogeneous distribution and improved cleaning action in the wash liquor (0017). Particularly, the particulate cleaner is used in particular, as dishwashing detergents, all-purpose cleaners, bath cleaners, floor cleaners, automobile cleaners, glass cleaners, furniture care compositions or cleaners, facade cleaners, washing agents and/or the like (0055). Weber teaches that the builder, foam hydrotropic agents are utilized such as The carrier materials suggested at between 0.1-70% (claims 1 and 16) includes coating substances can be chosen from the group consisting of salts, such as carbonates; organic and inorganic acids, such as citric acid; sugars, such as sucrose, glucose, fructose, sorbitol, lactose; starch and cellulose compounds, and/or urea (0045). In addition, fragrance and dyes are employed (0048) and surfactants such as those of the sulfonate and sulfate type, including C.sub.9-C.sub.13-alkylbenzenesulfonates (0111) and 5.5% of a stabilizer (Ex. 1 and claims 1 and 16). Specifically, Weber teaches the reaction effect if disintegrants, which increase in volume upon ingress of water, with on the one hand an increase in the intrinsic volume (swelling) and on the other hand, by way of the release of gases as well, the possibility of generating a pressure which causes the tablet to disintegrate into smaller particles. Examples of established disintegration auxiliaries are carbonate/citric acid systems (0170). As the example specifically teaches with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claims, they are considered anticipatory.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12, 15, 18-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (20040029765) in view of Sivik et al (2020/0190446).
Weber et al is relied upon as set forth above.
Specifically, Weber et al do not teach the composition of claims above with sufficient specificity to anticipate, which include sodium carbonate, sugars, C10-c16 LAS, citric acid, dye and fragrance; urea additive and the process of cleaning a vehicle of claims 24-26.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to comprise additional component not called out in the examples but suggested in the broader context of Weber et al since urea, sugar, dyes and fragrance are all suggested in the four corners of the reference. One skilled in the art in the absence of a showing to the contrary, would have been motivated to combine the ingredients for their intended purpose, in the absence of a showing to the contrary and in light of non-preferred embodiments being considered indicative for obviousness.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
With respect to the process and method of combining the ingredients to wash a vehicle, Weber et al teach that automobiles are utilized as substrates for said granular cleansing and furthermore, depositing said granulated formula in a wash liquor before washing a substrate (automobiles) is suggested (0017, 0055, 0170).
Weber et al do not disclose the use of a water disintegrable dosage or pack.
Sivik et al teach that water soluble pack for cleansing automobiles is well known and that said water soluble materials is made for polyvinyl alcohol (0015-0017; 0225; 0340).
It would have been obvious to incorporate a dosing apparatus such as a water soluble pack as outlined in Sivik et al with the guidance of Weber et al since Weber teaches utilizing broad dosing applications for their composition in a variety of apparatuses such as laundry and includes vehicle cleansing (0055). Sivik et al teaches that a dosing packet that solubilizes helps to meter the substance or compositions and they are more conveniently used and efficiently shipped (0005).
As stated in KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
"[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claimwould have been prima facie obvious] need not seek out preciseteachings directed to the specific subject matter of thechallenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferencesand creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the artwould employ."
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7-17-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weber et al fail to anticipate the claims due to the absence of a stabilizer from 5-15%.
The examiner contends and respectfully disagrees and directs applicants’ attention to the aforementioned example 1, where copolymers (stabilizers) from 5-15% are exemplified and claims 1 and 16, para 0045 of Weber, where stabilizers are suggested and utilized. Therefore, the claims are anticipated.
Applicant argues that [since] Sivik uses a surfactant as a foam inhibitor and “Weber teaches a foam inhibitor” there would not be a need for a “separate foam inhibitor”.
The examiner contends upon applicant’s representative admission that Weber teaches a foam inhibitor and contrary to their admission, additional ingredients of foam inhibition would not be precluded given the “comprising” transitional phrase of applicant’s claims. Therefore, the ingredients of the claims are suggested as prima facie obviousness. The claims remain rejected for reasons disclosed herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-1498. 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.
NECHOLUS . OGDEN JR
Examiner
Art Unit 1761
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
