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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 8, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4 are pending. Claim 5 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-3 are currently amended.
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed on March 3, 2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich et al. (US Patent No. 10,513,588, already of record), hereinafter “Friedrich.”
Regarding claim 1, Friedrich teaches an article comprising: a water-soluble film in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume, and a composition contained in the interior pouch volume (see claims 39-40), wherein the water-soluble film includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) polymer and a combination of at least three plasticizers (see abstract). The PVOH polymer of the water-soluble film can include a single PVOH homopolymer or a blend of PVOH homopolymers, among a few selections (see col. 10, lines 31-35). When the PVOH polymer and plasticizers are blended in particular proportions and/or selected with regard to various criteria related to physical and chemical film properties, the resulting water-soluble film formed from the PVOH resin exhibits a beneficial combination (e.g., two, three, or four of) of aged tensile strength, aged melting transition delta elevation, aged adhesion value, and/or resistance to seal peeling; and such combinations of properties provide the ability to form film seals that are strong and that retain their water-solubility characteristics (see col. 2, lines 36-48). The pouches may comprise a single compartment or multiple compartments (see col. 17, lines 63-65), and in embodiments comprising multiple compartments, each compartment may contain identical and/or different compositions, and may take any suitable form including, but not limited to liquid, solid and combinations thereof (see col. 18, lines 7-12). In one embodiment, the pouch or packet comprises a first and a second sealed compartment; and the second compartment is in a generally superposed relationship with the first sealed compartment such that the second sealed compartment and the first sealed compartment share a partitioning wall interior to the pouch. (see col. 19, lines 37-42). In some embodiments, the first composition (in the first compartment) and the second composition (in the second compartment) are liquid, liquid, respectively (see col. 19, lines 49-51), and in some embodiments, the first, second and third compositions (in the first, second and third compartments) are liquid, liquid, liquid, respectively (see col. 19, lines 53-55). The molds, in which pouches or packets may be made, can have any shape, length, width and depth, depending on the required dimensions of the pouches, for example, the volume of the final pouches may be about 5 ml to about 300 ml, or about 10 to 150 ml, or about 20 to about 100 ml, and that the mold sizes are adjusted accordingly (see col. 19, lines 33-36). In one embodiment, the composition may be a liquid heavy duty or laundry liquid detergent composition (see col. 19, lines 61-67). Friedrich also teaches 3 compartment pouches where the first enclosure is filled with 34.0 g liquid formulation and the other 2 are filled with 3.5 g liquid formulation, respectively (see Example Q in Table 11 under cols 45-46), wherein 83% by volume of the liquid detergent composition is comprised in the first compartment (34/(34 + 3.5 +3.5) x 100) = 83). Friedrich, however, fails to specifically disclose the water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol resin, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol resin consists of a polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer and wherein the total volume of the liquid detergent composition is from about 12 to about 18 ml as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected as the water-soluble film, polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer because this is one of the suitable polyvinyl alcohol polymers taught by Friedrich in col. 10, lines 31-35.
With regards to the total volume of the liquid detergent composition, considering that Friedrich teaches that the volume of the final pouch may be about 5 ml to about 300 ml, 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 (e.g., about 12 ml to about 18 ml) 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).
Please note that the showing on pages 17-18 of the specification for Inventive Example 1 is limited to polyvinyl alcohol consisting of polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer blend (see in particular, page 17, lines 14-17 and Table on page 18).
Regarding claims 2-4, Friedrich further teaches that the first composition comprises from 20.0 wt% alkylbenzene sulfonic acid anionic surfactant, 17.0 wt% C12-14 alkyl 7-ethoxylated nonionic surfactant and about 10 wt% water, among others (see formulation in Compartment 1 of Example Q in Table 11).
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
Prosecution Insights