DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 22, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 2 and 23. Claim 19 has been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-2, 6-18, 20-21 and 23-24 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20250919.
The rejection of claims 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gaskon, AU 2010241368, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Desenna et al, US 2002/0132746, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Greer et al, US 2002/0187119, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-19, 21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaziska et al, US 2002/0061831, is maintained for the reasons of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gaskon, AU 2010241368, does not teach or suggest in general a urine treatment product that has a density less than the density of water, as required in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Gaskon clearly discloses a urine treatment product comprising 40-70% by weight of sodium bicarbonate and 25-35% by weight of an acid selected from fumaric acid and citric acid, wherein the product reduces the need to flush the toilet after urination (see abstract and page 5, lines 25-26), that the product contains 5-10% by weight of cellulose (see page 5, lines 27-31), 1-3.5% by weight of a surfactant (see page 5, lines 32-34), 0.05-0.2% by weight of a microbial formulation (see page 6, lines 1-4), up to 0.05% by weight of a natural oil, such as eucalyptus oil (see page 6, lines 6-10), 1-7.5% by weight of a carrier, such as tapioca starch (see page 6, lines 6-10), food coloring powders, such as peppermint (see page 6, lines 12-13), that the product is in the form of a tablet having a mass of 2 grams (see page 9, lines 29-32, and that the product is made by evenly mixing the components (see page 9, lines 15-28). Although Gaskon is silent with respect to the density of their urine treatment product, the examiner asserts that the urine treatment product disclosed in Gaskon would inherently meet the density requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Applicant further argues that Desenna et al, US 2002/0132746, does not teach or suggest in general a toilet bowl cleaner effervescent tablet that has a density less than the density of water, as required in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Desenna et al, US 2002/0132746, clearly discloses a toilet bowl cleaner effervescent tablet comprising a surfactant, a binder, a lubricant, and a fragrance (see abstract), that the tablet contains 0.1-20% by weight of a hypochlorite generator, such as chlorinated isocyanurates (see paragraph 20), 20-90% by weight of sodium carbonate and citric acid as the effervescent system (see paragraph 21), up to 10% by weight of mineral oil (see paragraph 23), up to 20% by weight of a binder, such as sorbitol (see paragraph 24), a surfactant (see paragraph 25), an enzyme (see paragraph 26), a bleaching agent (see paragraph 27), and 0.05-0.5% by weight of a colorant (see Table 2), wherein the tablet is made by mixing the components (see paragraphs 30-31). Although Desenna et al is silent with respect to the density of their toilet bowl cleaner effervescent tablet, the examiner asserts that the toilet bowl cleaner effervescent tablet disclosed in Desenna et al would inherently meet the density requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Applicant further argues that Greer et al, US 2002/0187119, does not teach or suggest in general a single-use deodorizing agent in the form of a tablet that has a density less than the density of water, as required in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Greer et al, US 2002/0187119, discloses a single-use deodorizing agent in the form of a tablet that can be deposited or delivered into the toilet water before, during, or after each use (see abstract), that the tablet contains an acid, such as citric acid, sodium bicarbonate, a binding agent, such as cellulose, a colorful dye, and a fragrance (see paragraphs 28-35), wherein the tablet is made by mixing the components (see paragraphs 39-46). Although Greer et al is silent with respect to the density of their single-use deodorizing agent in the form of a tablet, the examiner asserts that the single-use deodorizing agent in the form of a tablet disclosed in Greer et al would inherently meet the density requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Applicant further argues that Kaziska et al, US 2002/0061831, does not teach or suggest in general an effervescent tablet that has a density less than the density of water, as required in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Kaziska et al, US 2002/0061831, discloses an effervescent tablet comprising 2-15% by weight of a quaternary ammonium biocide (see Table 1 and paragraphs 12-17), 25-50% by weight of an alkaline component, such as sodium carbonate (see Table 1 and paragraph 18), 15-35% by weight of an acid, such as citric acid (see Table 1 and paragraph 19), 5-30% by weight of an inert salt (see Table 1), 0.5-5% by weight of polyethylene glycol (see Table 1), 0.75-7% by weight of sorbitol (see Table 1), 0.5-2% by weight of a dye (see Table 1 and paragraph 35), 0.5-1% by weight of a perfume, such as lavender (see Table 1 and paragraph 34), and carboxymethyl cellulose (see paragraph 30), wherein the tablet is 4 centimeters in diameter, 0.5 centimeters in width, 10 grams in weight (see paragraph 25), and is made by mixing the components (see paragraphs 38-39). Although Kaziska et al is silent with respect to the density of their effervescent tablet, the examiner asserts that the effervescent tablet disclosed in Kaziska et al would inherently meet the density requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
February 23, 2026