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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 states the limitation “…pigment comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron oxide, manganese, mercury, titanium, zinc, and any combination thereof”. It is noted that: I)- the iron oxide is not a metal but rather a metal compound which makes the claim language indefinite. II)- It should be noted that the stated metals above (i.e. zinc, mercury, barium, titanium…..etc.) are not known as pigments, rather their oxides or their mixed mineral forms (titanium oxide, zinc oxide or cobalt aluminate… etc.) are well known pigments. The characterization of metals (pure metal) as a pigment is not chemically correct and thus the claim language requires a correction. For the sake of examination, only the compounds of above elements are construed as pigments.
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 1-3, 5-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Souter et al. (US 2015/0275154 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6-9, and 15-18, Souter teaches, identically, a unit dose water-soluble film material made from polyvinyl alcohol (instant claim 18) comprising a first and second compartments; [12-15, 21], wherein the second compartment is surrounded (instant claim 17) by first compartment; [15], first compartment includes a liquid composition and second compartment includes a powder; [30], first compartment comprises non-aqueous solvents (instant claims 8-9) such as 1,2 propane diol (propylene glycol), glycerol; [146, 147], and polyethylene glycol; [122], encapsulated fragrance (instant 6-7) ; [125, 160], inside a shell material such as melamine formaldehyde; [125]. Souter teaches the second compartment enclosing powder; [30], comprising (instant 15-16) salts such as sodium and calcium carbonate, fragrance, pigment (e.g. titanium dioxide) and a flow aid such as silica, alumina, titania, calcium carbonate, clay, and perfume (pure fragrance or perfumes are usually in oil form); [95, 96, 99].
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 10-11 and 14, Souter teaches pH adjusting agents (instant 14) such as calcium carbonate monoethanol amine and citric acid; [95, 110, 162, 151], and water; [31]. Note that the use of dye is not mandated by Souter; [110]. The amount of water (instant 10-11) in liquid composition of first compartment is 1-20 wt.%; [31] .
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.
Claim 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souter et al. (US 2015/0275154 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Roland et al. (WO 2021/259722 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, Souter 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 Souter’s composition as well.
Souter does not teach the acrylate polymer and copolymer (instant 12-13) 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.
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 9 AM- 6 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, 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
2026/01/08
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767