DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to a response to election/restriction filed January 5, 2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from consideration (refer to Election/Restrictions, below).
Claims 1-10 are being examined in this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 5, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on January 5, 2026, is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,591 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-6, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,591 B2 contain every element of claims 1-6, 9, and 10 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-6, 9, and 10 of the instant application.
With regards to claims 1, 3, 5, and 10, the only difference in recitations between the two sets of claims pertains to the limitation:
“whereby a first of said jaws comprises a flat portion along a longitudinal direction of the seal….” (Claim 1, lines 11-12, instant application)
The limitation “the flat portion” appears again in claims 3 and 10. Furthermore, a “second flat portion” is introduced in claim 5 of the instant application.
In contrast, claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,591 B2, recite:
“whereby a first of said jaws comprises a protruding portion along a longitudinal direction of the seal….” (Claim 1, lines 11-12, US Patent No. ‘591)
The limitation “a section of the protruding portion…comprises a bead shape protruding from the base” appears again in claims 3 and 10. Furthermore, the “second of said jaws comprises a flat portion” is introduced in claim 5 of US Patent No. ‘591.
Thus, it appears that both claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,466,591 B2 contain every element of claims claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 of the instant application, such that both sets of claims recite a pair of jaws with a flat, protruding portion, and as such anticipate claims claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 of the instant application.
Furthermore, claims 2, 4, and 6-9 appear to recite the same limitations recited in claims 2, 4, and 6-9 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,466,591 B2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. However, Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to claims 1-10. As such, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 1 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
"wherein the water-soluble fibrous non-woven sheet comprises a plurality of fibres, wherein the fibres comprise polyvinyl alcohol polymer, and wherein the granular laundry detergent comprises a plurality of particles, wherein the plurality of particles comprise perfume particles, wherein the perfume particles comprise perfume; and sealing jaws…whereby a first of said jaws comprises a flat portion along a longitudinal direction of the seal, the flat portion having a flat portion width along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the seal, the flat portion width having a dimension of more than about 3 times a thickness of the water-soluble fibrous non-woven sheet and of less than about 20 times the thickness of the water-soluble fibrous non-woven sheet.”
The closest prior art is considered to be the Tokunaga et al. (JP 2002-235236) (cited in IDS filed 08-27-2025), the Somerville Roberts et al. (US 2018/0362903) (cited in IDS filed 08-27-2025), and Csernak (US 3488914) (cited in IDS filed 08-27-2025).
The Tokunaga et al. reference teaches: a non-woven fabric bag containing an alkaline substance (commercially available powder detergent); the fiber and the packaging material of the present invention can be suitably used for solids, particularly granular materials; and two such nonwoven fabrics were overlapped, and three edges were sealed with a heat sealer to produce a packaging material. Powder soap is put into the obtained bag-shaped packaging material, and the edge of the remaining one side is heat-sealed with a heat sealer, and the inside is 5 cm X 5 cm.
The Somerville Roberts et al. reference teaches granular detergent including perfume packaged within a water-soluble film.
The Csernak reference teaches transverse sealing jaws (252, 253) one of which has a protruding portion (252a) which has a base which is more than about 3 times a thickness of film to be sealed and is less than about 20 times a thickness of the film to be sealed (fig. 8C).
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Any modification to the Tokunaga et al., Somerville Roberts et al., and Csernak structure, alone or in combination, to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required a reworking of the structure and the principle of operation in a manner which would not have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, especially since such modifications to the prior art structure would have gone beyond mere substitution or incorporation of a known structure capable of achieving predictable results. Any such modifications to the prior art structure in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required the improper benefit of the teachings of Applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRAACHI M. PATHAK whose telephone number is (571)272-8005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Tuesday 8:30 am-5:30 pm ET.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/Praachi M Pathak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
February 9, 2026