DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 14, 19, 20, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Oki et al, US 2010/0261633.
Oki et al teach a detergent builder granule comprising 25% sodium carbonate, 25% sodium sulfate, 46% bentonite, 1% PEG, and the balance water (¶99, example 9). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to claim 7, the examiner maintains that 25% sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate, taught by the reference, satisfies the “about 24%” claimed.
With respect to claim 14, the PEG has a molecular weight of 8500 (¶100, detergent 4).
With respect to claim 25, as the composition of the reference is identical to the composition claimed, it will have the same disintegration time as that claimed.
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.
Claims 1-8, 14, 17-20, 22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki et al, US 2010/0261633.
Oki et al are relied upon as set forth above. Preferred ingredients in these detergent builder granules include 7% sodium chloride (example 21), and sodium silicate (examples 17-18), an oil agent and perfumes may be added (¶31), and water may be present in amounts as low as 3% (¶100, detergent 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add well-known and common detergent additives to the builder granule of example 9 with confidence of forming an effective detergent builder granule as these components are taught by the reference as preferred or suitable.
Claims 1-9, 14-20, 22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki et al, US 2010/0261633 in view of Vandijk et al, US 2003/0195134.
Oki et al are relied upon as set forth above. Oki et al teach detergent granules, but they do not teach a magnesium stearate additive.
Vandijk et al teach detergent granules that may contain magnesium stearate as a “stickiness breaking material” to ensure that the granules are free flowing (¶52-53). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a free-flowing agent to the detergent granule of example 9 of Oki et al with confidence of forming an effective detergent builder granule as Vandijk et al teach that “stickiness breaking materials” are desirable to keep the granules free flowing.
With respect to claim 9, recall Oki et al teach that an oil agent and perfumes may be added, but the source of these oils and perfumes is not disclosed. Vandijk et al specifically teach that perfumes may be derived from plant and animal sources (¶94).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is 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. Though detergent granules are ubiquitous in the art, and clays and builders are common ingredients, these detergents are overwhelmingly used in the wash or rinse cycle, not the drying cycle. Dryer added fabric softening compositions are known in the art of course, but they are typically added by dryer sheet or dryer balls, not as a detergent tablet for use in a dryer. The prior art does not teach the composition of claim 1 for use in a clothes dryer and so this claim is allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761