DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2025/12/19.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6-13, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2021/0095229 A1) in view of Roland et al. (WO 2021/259722 A1), as further evidenced by Souter et al. (US 2015/0275154 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-9, 14, 16 and 18, Fossum teaches a unit dose product (for laundry; 13, 92, 148, claim 12) comprising multiple compartments (or pouches as needed) being side by side and separated by at least a layer of film; [20, 22, 93], made from (instant claim 18) polyvinyl alcohol; [22, 139], wherein each component of the product, or composition to be placed in compartments are in any forms such as liquid, solid such as powders; [22]. Composition comprises encapsulated perfume (fragrance) which is encapsulated (instant claims 6-7) by polyacrylates (acrylate polymers) or amine compounds (i.e. melamine); [90], with nonaqueous solvent(s) such as glycerol, propylene glycol (1, 2 propane diol) (instant claims 8-9) or ethylene glycol; [138], pigments (instant claims 1, 3) such as carotenoid, phthalocyanine (as identically disclosed by instant applicant in Pg.Pub. US 2024/0209295 A1: 0081) or pigment blue; [106, 110], and powder flow aids (instant claims 16) such as zeolite, sodium carbonate and bicarbonate; [99], and pH adjusting agents (instant claims 2, 14) such as trisodium phosphate, monoethanol amine, citric acid, lactic acid and sorbic acid; [99, 101, 125]. Further note that, it would have been obvious to place the instantly claimed components of the unit dose in the same manner in separate compartments as stated by Fossum above and similarly further evidenced by Souter; [15, 30].
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Fossum does not teach the amount of pigment. However, I)- the small amounts of pigment (a delimiting one) are easily modified or optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without the exercise of inventive skill (i.e. routine laboratory experimentation) and does not impart patentability.
II)- Furthermore, the analogous art of Roland teaches a liquid detergent composition (for fabrics: page 2: L.16, page 5: L.27], comprising pigments in the amount of 0.05-3 wt.%; [page 5: L.9]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the similarly utilize the pigment amount of Roland for Fossum’s composition as well. Note that with respect to the amount of pigment within the colored powder (i.e. flowing aid) the selection of the amounts of powder and pigment is not considered as imparting any patentability since their minimal used amounts are construed as a routine laboratory experiment chosen for the intended properties of final product.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 15, Fossum teaches the amounts of water in the amounts of less than 20 wt.%; [148]. Fossum teaches rheology modifiers (e.g. thickener or structurants) such as acrylic polymers; [87, 89, 99], and salts such as carbonate, bicarbonate; [99].
Regarding claim 13, Fossum does not teach the acrylate polymer and copolymer as a rheology (viscosity) adjusting agent. However the analogous art of Roland teaches the acrylic acid derivatives as rheology modifier. More specifically the copolymer of ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (i.e. acrylic acid) and alkyl acrylate are used for controlling the viscosity of the liquid detergent composition; [(pg. 1: L.9-11, pg.2: L.31-34]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the copolymer of Roland to liquid component of Souter’s unit dose composition with the motivation of enhancing its controlled introduction, dissolution, in the laundry wash liquor as taught by Roland.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2021/0095229 A1), Roland et al. (WO 2021/259722 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Souter et al. (US 2015/0275154 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Fossum does not teach the second compartment surrounds the first compartment. However, the analogous art of Souter teaches a unit dose water-soluble film material made from polyvinyl alcohol comprising a first and second compartments; [12-15, 21], wherein the second compartment is surrounded by first compartment; [15]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to design the geometry of the unit dose in such a way (as instantly claimed) that the actives of the second components to be released into washing medium before the actives of the first compartment (fragrance) with the motivation of introducing the fragrance onto laundry fabrics at the last stage of the washing process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number
for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/07/20
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights