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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending. Claim 6 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed July 16, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 2/26/26 have been withdrawn:
None.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification, as originally filed, provides no basis for “substantially free” from aminocarboxylic acid builder compounds. While the specification does provide basis for “free” of aminocarboxylic acid builder compounds, the specification provides no basis for “substantially free”. Thus, this is deemed new matter. Note that, instant claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-21 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-21 are 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.
The term “substantially free” from aminocarboxylic acid builder in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially free” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Note that, the instant specification provides no definition or guidance with respect to the term “substantially free”, and in the absence of such a definition or guidance, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For example, does “substantially free” mean less than 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.5%, etc., by weight? Clarification is required. Note that, instant claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-21 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to instant claim 16, this claim is dependent upon instant claim 1, wherein instant claim 1 recites “builder compounds selected from GLDA and MGDA”; instant claim 16 recites “one or more builder compounds is selected from one or more aminocarboxylic acids” which does not further limit instant claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 7-13, 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2,857,486 in view of WO2014/011845 and WO02/42408.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘486 teaches a multi-compartment pouch made from a water-soluble film and having at least three compartments, said multi-compartment pouch comprises in a first compartment a liquid detergent composition A, in a second compartment a solid bleaching composition B and in a third component a liquid or solid composition C, said composition A comprising at least 30% by weight, referring to the total amount of composition A, of a mixture comprising at least one anionic surfactant and at least one nonionic surfactant, and of at least 0.001 % by weight, referring to the total amount of composition A, of at least one enzyme, and having a water-content of below 10% by weight, referring to the total amount of composition A and said composition A containing no bleaching agent, said composition B comprising at least one peroxy compound bleaching agent and at least one washing alkali, and said composition C comprising at least one bleach activator. The multi-compartment pouch is in particular characterized by a selected combination of ingredients resulting in an advantageous washing and cleaning action. See Abstract. Solid compositions may have different shapes, for example powders, granules, prills or tablets. See para. 47. Preferably, the one or more anionic surfactants and the one or more nonionic surfactants are present in the liquid detergent composition A in a weight ratio of anionic surfactants to nonionic surfactants of from 10:1 to 1:10, particularly preferred from 5:1 to 1:5, especially preferred from 3:1 to 1:3 and extraordinarily preferred from 2:1 to 1:2. See para. 87. Preferably, the one or more bleaching agents in the solid bleaching composition B is or are used in an amount that the weight ratio between the surfactants of the liquid detergent composition A to the one or more bleaching agents is between 100: 1 and 1: 1, particularly preferred between 50: 1 to 2: 1, more particularly preferred between 40: 1 to 4: 1 and most particularly preferred between 30: 1 to 5:1. See para. 99. Suitable bleaches include alkali metal salts of percarbonate, etc. See paras. 100-102. Suitable bleach activators include 1,5-diacetyl-2,4-dioxohexahydro-1,3,5-triazine (DADHT), acylated glycolurils, in particular tetraacetylglycoluril (TAGU), etc. See para. 118. Note that, ‘486 does not require the use of TAED and clearly suggests embodiments that contain 0% by weight of TAED as recited by the instant claims. Besides the aforementioned anionic and nonionic surfactants and enzymes, further constituents which may be present in the liquid detergent composition A are amphoteric and cationic surfactants, builders, cobuilders, washing alkalis, bleach catalysts, sequestrants, soil release polymers, graying inhibitors, color transfer inhibitors, color fixatives, complexing agents, optical brighteners, softening components, dyes, fragrances, hydrotropes, organic solvents, and/or water. Besides the aforementioned bleaching agents and washing alkalis, further constituents which may be present in the solid bleaching composition B are bleach catalysts, dyes and/or fragrances. See paras. 125-127.
Builders suitable for use herein include builder which forms water-soluble hardness ion complexes (sequestering builder) such as citrates and polyphosphates e.g. sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium tripolyphosphate hexahydrate, potassium tripolyphosphate and mixed sodium and potassium tripolyphosphate salts and builder which forms hardness precipitates (precipitating builder) such as carbonates e.g. sodium carbonate. These builders can be present in the liquid detergent composition A with weight fractions of from 5 to 80%, referring to the amount of the liquid detergent composition A. Inorganic builders include, for example, alkali metal, ammonium- and alkanolammonium salts of polyphosphates such as, for example, tripolyphosphates, pyrophosphates and glass-like polymeric metaphosphates, phosphonates, silicates, carbonates including bicarbonates and sesquicarbonates, sulfates and aluminosilicates. Examples of silicate builders are the alkali metal silicates, in particular those with an SiO: Na₂O ratio between 1.6: 1 and 3.2: 1, and also sheet silicates, for example layered sodium disilicate or sodium sheet silicates, as described in US 4,664,839, available from Clariant under the brand SKS®. Preferred silicates are sodium silicates such as sodium disilicate, sodium metasilicate and crystalline phyllosilicates, or layered silicates. Suitable organic builders include aminocarboxylic acids such as MGDA, etc. Preferably the amino acid based compound or succinate based compound is present in the liquid detergent composition A in an amount of at least 1 wt%, preferably at least 5 wt%, more preferably at least 15 wt%, and most preferably at least 20 wt%. See para. Other builders include homopolymers and copolymers of polycarboxylic acids and their partially or completely neutralized salts, monomeric polycarboxylic acids and hydroxycarboxylic acids and their salts. Preferred salts of the abovementioned compounds are the ammonium and/or alkali metal salts, i.e. the lithium, sodium, and potassium salts, and particularly preferred salts are the sodium salts. Builders based on citrate, e.g. citric acid and its soluble salts, in particular the sodium salt, are preferred polycarboxylic acid builders, which can also be used together with zeolites and/or sheet silicates. 140-157. The liquid detergent composition A can comprise washing alkalis which increase the pH of the washing liquor. But in view of the upper pH-value of 9 of the washing liquor after addition of the liquid detergent composition A, the amount of such washing alkalis - if present in said liquid detergent composition A - is limited. But the solid bleaching composition B comprises washing alkalis which increase the pH of the washing liquor to a pH-value of the washing liquor of 9 or higher. See para. 161. Washing alkalis are typically selected from the group consisting of carbonates, hydrogencarbonates and silicates, in particular alkali metal carbonates, alkali metal hydrogencarbonates and alkali metal silicates. See para. 163. Suitable bleach catalysts include complexes of manganese, etc. Bleach catalyst, if included in composition A and/or B and/or C, are typically present in a level of from 0.01 to 10%, preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight referring to composition A or B or C, respectively. See para. 170.
‘498 does not teach the specific amount of sodium percarbonate or a multicompartment capsule (i.e., pouch) containing a first composition which is in the form of a powder containing an alkali metal carbonate, sodium percarbonate, sodium silicate, and a bleach catalyst; a second composition which is in the form of a liquid containing a nonionic surfactant, a builder, and water; and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘845 teaches an automatic dishwashing detergent. See Abstract. In one embodiment, the product of the invention is a unit-dose product. Products in unit dose form include tablets, capsules, sachets, pouches, etc. In one embodiment, the unit dose is contained in a water-soluble film (including tablets, capsules, sachets, pouches). In one embodiment, the product is in the form of a water soluble pouch. A non-limiting example of a pouch material includes polyvinyl alcohol. The weight of the composition of the invention contained in the pouch (excluding the weight of the pouch material) is from about 10 to about 35 grams, in one embodiment from about 12 to about 26 grams, and in another embodiment from 14 to 22 grams. This weight is inclusive of the composition contained in one or more compartments of the unit dose form, alternatively the composition divided into one or more components wherein the components are contained in one or more compartments of the unit dose form. In one embodiment, the pouches comprise one compartment, alternatively two, or three or more compartments. In another embodiment, the pouches comprise at least two side-by-side compartments to form multi-compartment pouches. In one embodiment, the two compartments are superposed to one another. The compartments may contain components of the overall claimed composition described herein. In one embodiment, at least one of the compartments contains a powder component and the other compartment contains a non-powder component. Non-powder components can be in the form of a gel or a liquid or an aqueous liquid. The powder component can be compressed powder or non-compressed powder or mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, at least one of the compartments contains a solid component and another compartment contains a non-solid component. In another embodiment, at least one of the compartments contains a solid component and another compartment contains an aqueous liquid component. The components contained in the respective compartments can have the same or varying weight ratios to each other. The product may contain an alkalinity source, and examples of alkalinity source include, but are not limited to, an alkali hydroxide, alkali hydride, alkali oxide, alkali sesquicarbonate, alkali carbonate, alkali borate, alkali salt of mineral acid, alkali amine, alkaloid and mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, the alkalinity source is sodium carbonate, in another embodiment sodium hydroxide, in another embodiment potassium hydroxide. The alkalinity source is typically present in an amount sufficient to give the wash liquor a pH of from about 8 to about 12, more preferably from about 9 to about 11.5. The composition herein may comprise from about 1% to about 40%, more preferably from about 2% to 20% by weight of the composition of alkaline source. See page 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an alkalinity source such as an alkali metal carbonate, a sodium silicate, and alkali metal citrate in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims in the solid composition B taught by ‘486, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘845 teaches the use of alkalinity sources in amounts, for example, of 35% or 40% by weight in a similar and further, ‘486 teaches the use of alkali metal carbonate, a sodium silicate, alkali metal citrates, etc., as alkalinity sources/builders in general for use in the solid composition B which would raise the pH as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the pouch as taught by ‘486 such that it has a compartment A weight for example, of 10 grams and a compartment B weight, for example, of 10 grams, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘845 teaches the formulation of a similar multicompartment pouch having a weight, for example, of 20 grams and further, ‘486 teaches the formulation of a multi-compartment pouch in general with varying components.
‘408 teaches a water-soluble pouch suitable for use in machine dishwashing and which comprises a plurality of compartments in generally superposed or suppressible relationship, each containing one or more detergent active or auxiliary components, and wherein the pouch has a volume of from about 5 to about 70 ml and a longitudinal/transverse aspect ratio in the range from about 2:1 to about 1:8, preferably from about 1:1 to about 1:4. The water-soluble pouch allows for optimum delivery of dishwashing detergent. See Abstract. Inorganic perhydrate salts are typically incorporated at levels in the range from about 1% to about 40% by weight, preferably from about 2% to about 30% by weight and more preferably from about 5% to about 25% by weight of composition. See page 27, lines 15-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sodium percarbonate in an amount, for example, of 15% or 20% by weight in the composition taught by ‘486, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘408 teaches the use of sodium percarbonate in an amount, for example, of 15% or 20% by weight in a similar composition and further, ‘486 teaches the use of sodium percarbonate in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a multicompartment capsule (i.e., pouch) containing a first composition which is in the form of a powder containing an alkali metal carbonate, sodium percarbonate, sodium silicate, and a bleach catalyst; a second composition which is in the form of a liquid containing a nonionic surfactant, a builder, and water; and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘498 in view of ‘845 and ‘408 suggest a multicompartment capsule (i.e., pouch) containing a first composition which is in the form of a powder containing an alkali metal carbonate, sodium percarbonate, sodium silicate, and a bleach catalyst; a second composition which is in the form of a liquid containing a nonionic surfactant, a builder, and water; and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using EP 2,857,486 in view of WO2014/011845 and WO02/42408, Applicant states that while '486 discloses the use of MGDA and GLDA (para 150), there is no teaching or suggestion to distribute MGDA and/or GLDA over a multi-compartment capsule wherein one compartment contains a powdered composition free of MGDA and/or GLDA and a separate compartment contains a liquid composition comprised of MGDA and/or GLDA ranging from 15- 25% w/w of the liquid composition.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that , ‘486 teaches a liquid composition A (i.e., liquid composition) that corresponds to the second composition as recited by the instant claims, wherein ‘486 specifically teaches that composition A contains no bleach agent and contains amino-based builders such as aminocarboxylic acids including MGDA, etc., which may be used in amounts of at least 1 wt%, preferably at least 5 wt%, more preferably at least 15 wt%, and most preferably at least 20 wt%. (See paras. 140-152 of ‘486) and would clearly fall within the scope of the instant claims.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that WO2014/011845 and WO02/42408 are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘486 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘845 and ‘408 to cure the deficiencies of ‘486. ‘845 and ‘408 are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of the specific amounts of various builders and the specific amount of sodium percarbonate, respectively, as recited by the instant claims. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use an alkalinity source such as an alkali metal carbonate, a sodium silicate, and alkali metal citrate in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims in the solid composition B taught by ‘486, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘845 teaches the use of alkalinity sources in amounts, for example, of 35% or 40% by weight in a similar and further, ‘486 teaches the use of alkali metal carbonate, a sodium silicate, alkali metal citrates, etc., as alkalinity sources/builders in general for use in the solid composition B which would raise the pH as desired. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use sodium percarbonate in an amount, for example, of 15% or 20% by weight in the composition taught by ‘486, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘408 teaches the use of sodium percarbonate in an amount, for example, of 15% or 20% by weight in a similar composition and further, ‘486 teaches the use of sodium percarbonate in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘486 in view of ‘408 and ‘845 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Further, Applicant states statements have been provided in the instant specification which is sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Specifically, Applicant states that the optimal distribution of the builder compounds allows for a reduced presence of bleach activators such as TAED, while obtaining very good bleaching performance, as explained in par. [0021] of the published application. In response, note that, while the properties of the claimed composition are described in the instant specification, the Examiner asserts that these statements are not supported by any factual or numeric data and are not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Note that, it is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See also In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 5642 (CCPA 1978) (“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results.”). See MPEP 716.01(c)(I). Thus, the Examiner asserts that Applicant’s statements provided in the instant specification are not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights