DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 26, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 2 and 23. Claim 20 has been cancelled. New claims 26 and 27 have been added. Currently, claims 1-2, 6-18, 21, 23-24 and 26-27 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 actions, Paper Nos. 20250919 and 20260223.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-18, 20-21 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102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gaskon, AU 2010241368, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-18, 20-21 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as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Desenna et al, US 2002/0132746, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-18, 20-21 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as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Greer et al, US 2002/0187119, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-18, 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as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaziska et al, US 2002/0061831, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 27 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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “polyaspartic acid (RASA)”. Specifically, the correct abbreviation for polyaspartic acid is “PASA”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-2, 6-18, 21, 23-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rau et al, US 2010/0034889.
Rau et al, US 2010/0034889, discloses effervescent tablets/granules that dissolve in warm water and are formulated as ceramic cleaners (see abstract). It is further taught by Rau et al that the granules are used in a process to clean toilet bowls (see paragraph 45), that the mini-tablets or granules have a density of about 1.1-1.6 g/cc and exhibit effervescence in 30-120 seconds (see paragraph 11), that the mini-tablets or granules can be packaged together or as a single serving (see paragraph 31), that the sphere shaped tablets are about 4.5 mm in diameter and have a weight of 65 mg each (i.e., 0.065 g; see paragraph 32), that the granules are formed by grinding the tablets and passing the granules through a sieve at the desired size to achieve a weight of 37-156 mg (see paragraphs 33-34 and 37-39), and that the tablet products contain citric acid, malic acid, potassium bicarbonate, sodium bicarbonate, PEG 180, sodium benzoate, black tea solids, a vitamin blend, an herbal blend, caffeine, microcrystalline cellulose, corn syrup solids, sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame-k, flavor solids, flavor oil, sodium chloride, magnesium sulfate, and color (see paragraph 36), per the requirements of the instant invention. Also, note the bath product Example in Paragraph 41. Therefore, instant claims 1-2, 6-18, 21, 23-24 and 26-27 are anticipated by Rau et al, US 2010/0034889.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 2, 10-11, 14-17, 21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Deflorian et al, WO 2018/033571.
Deflorian et al, WO 2018/033571, discloses a water soluble pellet for releasing one or more actives comprising 10-95% by weight of vegetable oil, 2-12% by weight of a perfume oil, 0.001-0.5% by weight of a dye, and 5-40% by weight of PEG 6000, wherein the pellets have a weight of 5 milligrams to 1 gram and are made by mixing, extruding, and cutting (see abstract and page 2, lines 1-26), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples on pages 3-6. Therefore, instant claims 2, 10-11, 14-17, 21 and 26-27 are anticipated by Deflorian et al, WO 2018/033571.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6-18, 21, 23-24 and 26-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brunett, US 2018/0015195, discloses an odor masking tablet (see abstract).
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
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights