DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 21-34 and 36-40 are pending. Claim 21, 30 and 36 are independent. Claim 35 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 21-34 and 36-40 as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,538,720 B2 is withdrawn upon consideration of the approved terminal disclaimer filed 9/30/2025.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 21-34 and 36-40 as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,347,022 B1 is withdrawn upon consideration of the approved terminal disclaimer filed 9/30/2025.
The rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment filed 9/30/2025.
The rejection of claims 21-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonsen (US 2004/0254087 A1) in view of Frentzel et al. (US 9,347,022 B1) is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims and statement of common ownership filed 9/16/2025.
The rejection of claims 36-38 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frentzel et al. (US 9,347,022 B1) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-34 and 36-40 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection below. Applicant’s urge Simonsen do not teach nor suggest the amendment to 50% of watersoluble polymer. Upon careful consideration of Applicant’s amendment and response, Simonsen is pertinent to the claims as presented for examination for teaching about 50wt% [0043] and [0045] of the same PEG watersoluble polymer [0036,0038] having the same MW range [0240] as disclosed in the instant specification [0110] along with Simonsen teaching in [0227] 0.01-100 mg of CAREZYME enzyme [0214] encompasses limitation to the individual particles having a mass from about 5mg-200mg because the art discloses the same range of the same tradename CAREZYME [0214] with the same PEG having the same MW of in the instant claims. One of ordinary skill is apprised that the similar amounts of the PEG with the same MW and same CARZEYME ingredients would reasonably be expected to have the same properties of particle mass between 5 mg to 200 mg. Upon an updated search of the claim amendment to the 50% watersoluble polymer percentage, Malle et al. is found pertinent exemplifying 75g of corn starch water soluble polymer with 3% perfume. Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonsen (US 2004/0254087 A1) in view of Malle et al. (FR3023481A1) Google Patents Translation attached.
Simonsen (US 2004/0254087 A1) teach a solid particulate composition comprising a plurality of particles [0126], wherein said particles comprise: from 50% by weight of said particles of water soluble polymer. See [0043] and [0045] of PEG watersoluble polymer [0036,0038] having the same MW range [0240] as disclosed in the instant specification [0110]. With respect to independent claim 21, Simonsen [0036] teaches the claimed polyethylene glycol water-soluble polymer and [0043] teaches a molecular weight of 0.75xMw to 1.25xMw is at least 50% w/w [0043] encompassing the claim 21 amendment of water soluble polymer.
Claim 21 limitation to wherein said particles individually have a mass from about 5mg to about 200 mg and said plurality of particles is substantially free form particles having a mass less than 10 mg. is met by [0242] table where the total dust is represented in mg per 20g granulate and guides one of ordinary skill to values [74.9 and 21.5) and thus, within the claimed range. See the table in [0242]
Simonsen [0095] and [0226] teach perfumes and fragrances but is silent as to the claimed amount of from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight perfume. Simonsen teach limitation to wherein said particles comprise an alkali metal salt selected from the groups in claim 21, on page 7, [0019]. Simonsen teach claim 21 wherein individual said particles have a mass from about 5 mg to about 200 mg in the table [0242] explicitly teaches 21.5 mg and 74.9 mg of enzyme on the granulate.
With respect to independent claim 30, Simonsen [0036] teaches the claimed polyethylene glycol water-soluble polymer and [0043] teaches a molecular weight of 0.75xMw to 1.25xMw is at least 45% w/w. Simonsen [0094] and [0226] teach perfumes and fragrances but are silent as to the claimed amount of from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight perfume. Simonsen teach limitation to wherein said particles comprise an alkali metal salt selected from the groups in claim 30, on page 7, [0019]. Simonsen teach claim 30 wherein individual said particles have a mass from about 5 mg to about 200 mg in the table [0242] explicitly teaches 21.5 mg and 74.9 mg of enzyme on the granulate.
Examiner’s notes Simonsen teach the same PEG watersoluble polymer having the same MW range [0240] as disclosed in the instant specification [0110] along with Simonsen teaching in [0227] 0.01-100 mg of CAREZYME enzyme [0214] encompasses limitation to the individual particles having a mass from about 5mg-200mg because the art discloses the same range of the same tradename CAREZYME [0214] with the same PEG having the same MW of in the instant claims. One of ordinary skill is apprised that the similar amounts of the PEG with the same MW and same CARZEYME ingredients would reasonably be expected to have the same properties of particle mass between 5 mg to 200 mg. Simonsen [0125] teaching all kinds of particles comprising an active compound having a size of 50 to even 250 um may be coated. See [0125] on page 7.
Simonsen [0054] lines 9-10 teach their “water soluble waxes are polyethylene glycols (PEG's)” which is the same PEG of instant claims 26 and 34.
Simonsen [0126] lines 7-9 teach one of ordinary skill that “the core particle is constructed of a particulate carrier where the active compound is absorbed into the carrier”
PNG
media_image1.png
66
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and [0054] teaches their particulate carrier is the watersoluble polymer waxes, namely, PEG. Simonsen make it very clear in [0054] lines 9-10 that their “water soluble waxes are polyethylene glycols (PEG's)” which Examiner noted is the same PEG of claims 26 and 34.
And [0134] teaches “As said the active may be present dispersed as discrete solid particles in the core particle.” It is the Examiner’s position that this encompasses the claimed language to substantially homogenously mixed in claims 25 and 33.
PNG
media_image2.png
250
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, [0135] teaches the active compound is enzyme and Simonsen teach in [0227] 0.01-100 mg of CAREZYME enzyme [0214].
PNG
media_image3.png
152
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 27 and 35 limitations to wherein said plurality of particles is substantially free from particles having a mass less than 10 mg is suggested by Simonsen [0242] exemplifying a 20 gram granulate and [0005] guiding one of ordinary skill to reduce the formation of dust when handling the granulate.
Claims 25 and 33 limitations to wherein said perfume and said alkali metal salt are substantially homogeneously mixed with one another is met by the art disclosing their core particle comprises the active compounds dispersed in a matrix wherein the active and optionally other useful components may in principle be any material or mixtures of materials which meets the requirements for viscosity and elasticity set for the Visco-elastic core particles. See page 7, [0130]. Further Simonsen [0126] lines 7-9 teach one of ordinary skill that “the core particle is constructed of a particulate carrier where the active compound is absorbed into the carrier” and [0054] teaches the particulate carrier is the watersoluble polymer, namely, PEG. And [0134] teaches “As said the active may be present dispersed as discrete solid particles in the core particle.” And [0135] teaches the active compound is a bleach or an enzyme or organic or inorganic compounds.
Claim 28 limitation to wherein individual said particles have a shape selected from the group of spherical, hemispherical, compressed hemispherical, lentil shaped, and oblong is met by Simonsen [0022] on page 2 teaching the terms “particles” and “granules” in the context of the present invention are to be understood as a predominantly spherical or near spherical structure of a macromolecular size and coated particles are in the following referred to as granules.
Regarding the material of independent claim 36, see [0107] teaching starch particles. Simonsen [0094] and [0226] teach perfumes and fragrances but is silent as to the claimed amount of from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight perfume as is required in each independent claim 21 and 30 and 36. Also, Simonsen does not teach their perfumes comprise encapsulated perfume and/or unencapsulated perfume as required in claims 22-24 and 31-32, 37-38.
In the analogous art, Malle et al. (FR3023481) teach a composition comprising a plurality of particles, (see the Google Patents Translation of the abstract & claim 1) and further exemplify in Ex. 5 on page 10, last paragraph illustrating 75.0g of corn starch particles with 3.0% free perfume thus encompassing the claimed about 50% to about 95% by weight watersoluble polymer (as the total is 100) and about 0.1% to about 20% by weight perfume (see page 7, paragraphs 6-8) teaching perfume benefit agents in amounts of 10-20%. Malle et al. page 9, middle paragraph teach the same PEG particles as also disclosed by Simonsen can have either encapsulated perfume, unencapsulated perfume or both. See Malle et al. abstract and example A and example 5 on page 10 last paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the perfume of Simonsen with the claimed 0.1% to about 20% perfume that is encapsulated, unencapsulated or a mixture thereof as claimed and taught by Malle et al. teaching a plurality of watersoluble particles including 3% to about 20% by weight perfume that is encapsulated, unencapsulated or a mixture thereof is commonly mixed with the higher percentage range of watersoluble polymer as already suggested by Simonsen et al. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Simonsen with that of Malle et al. because both are in the analogous art of a composition comprising a plurality of the same particles.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761