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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 27th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are pending in the application. Claims 5-6 and claim 9 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foshan Qianru Cosmetics Co. (CN 106635487 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foshan Qianru Cosmetics Co. (CN 106635487 A) and further in view of Vinson (US 20220064569 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foshan Qianru Cosmetics Co. (CN 106635487 A) and further in view of Sun (US 11760962 B1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foshan Qianru Cosmetics Co. (CN 106635487 A) and further in view of Sun (US 11760962 B1) and Schubert (US 20160244698 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foshan Qianru Cosmetics Co. (CN 106635487 A) and further in view of Sun (US 11760962 B1) and Nielsen (US 20130177518 A1) is withdrawn.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20080276967 A1), and further in view of Holderbaum (US 20050225003 A1), Gartstein (US 20150030643 A1), and Gelderman (US 20190144784 A1).
With regard to claim 1 and claim 4, Smith discloses cleaning compositions (see Abstract) which may be used on fabrics (see [0044]) and may be solid (see [0047]). Smith further discloses anionic and nonionic surfactants (see [0099]) at 0-20wt% (see [0108]). Smith further discloses potassium laureth-7-sulfate as a suitable anionic surfactant (see [0107]). Smith further teaches 0-20wt% of an anionic surfactant and 0-20wt% of a nonionic surfactant (see Table 2). Smith further discloses silica as a processing aid at 1-70wt% (see [0115]-[0116]). Smith further discloses hydroxyethyl cellulose at 0-10wt% (see [0169]). Smith further discloses water (see Table 1-Table 5) and further discloses treated water (see [0097]).
However, Smith fails to disclose a forming agent.
Holderbaum discloses laundry detergent tablets, an analogous art (see Abstract). Holderbaum further discloses the laundry detergent tablets may comprise anionic and nonionic surfactants (see [0170]). Holderbaum further discloses alk(en)yl sulfates as suitable anionic surfactants (see [0156]). Holderbaum further discloses polyvinylpyrrolidone as a disintegrant (see [0183]) at 0.5-10wt% (see [0184]). Holderbaum further discloses disintegrants as useful for ensuring rapid disintegration of tablets in water (see [0182]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the polyvinylpyrrolidone of Holderbaum in the solid cleaning composition of Smith to ensure rapid disintegration of tablets in water, as disclosed by Holderbaum.
Smith further fails to disclose a softener.
Gartstein discloses granular laundry detergents, an analogous art (see [0124]). Gartstein further discloses 1-40wt% of one or more surfactants and the surfactants may be anionic, nonionic, and mixtures thereof (see [0036]). Gartstein further discloses from about 10% to about 99.99% by weight of water (see [0058]). Gartstein further discloses 0.001-15wt% of aminosilicone nanoemulsion (see [0126]) as useful for protecting surfaces from being soiled or wetted (see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the aminosilicone nanoemulsion of Gartstein in the solid cleaning composition of Smith to protect surfaces from being soiled or wetted, as disclosed by Gartstein.
Smith further fails to disclose deionized water.
Gelderman discloses a solid detergent composition for dishwashing or warewashing, an analogous art (see Abstract). Gelderman further discloses deionized water (see [0056]) at 0-20wt% (see [0057]). Gelderman further discloses water may be introduced into the composition to provide a desired viscosity for processing prior to solidification and to provide a desired rate of solidification (see [0056]).
Smith discloses a process for producing a solid cleaning composition comprising providing a powder or crystalline form of cleaning composition; melting the powder or crystalline form of the cleaning composition; transferring the molten cleaning composition into a mold; and cooling the molten composition to solidify it (see [0201]). Gelderman discloses a process for producing a solid controlled release composition comprising combining and mixing one or more ingredients at high shear to form a homogeneous mixture, dispensing the mixture by forming, pressing, casting, extruding, or other suitable means, and pressing or hardening the composition into a solid form (see [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the deionized water of Gelderman in the solid cleaning composition of Smith for the purpose of providing a desired viscosity for processing prior to solidification and providing a desired rate of solidification, as disclosed by Gelderman.
With regard to claim 2, with respect to the ratio of 1:9 to 9:1 considering that Smith teaches potassium laureth-7-sulfate in the range of 0-20% as disclosed in [Table 2] and nonionic surfactant in the range of 0-20% as disclosed in [Table 2], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 16.0 wt% potassium laureth-7-sulfate: 8 wt% nonionic surfactant or 2:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 3, Smith discloses a zwitterionic surfactant (see [0099]). Smith further discloses a surfactant system and further teaches a variety of surfactants may be used (see [0099]).
While Smith fails to disclose a specific concentration of zwitterionic surfactant, Smith discloses 0-20wt% of surfactants and the surfactants may be anionic and nonionic. Through routine experimentation, one having ordinary skill in the art would optimize a particular weight percentage of surfactants.
Claim 7 and claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20080276967 A1), Holderbaum (US 20050225003 A1), Gartstein (US 20150030643 A1), and Gelderman (US 20190144784 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (US 11760962 B1).
With regard to claim 7 and claim 10, Smith, Holderbaum, Gartstein, and Geldman disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Smith, Holderbaum, Gartstein, and Geldman fail to disclose the stain solubilizer is polyols having a molecular weight of not more than 150.
Sun discloses a detergent tablet comprising polyvinyl alcohol, film-forming agent, surfactant, plant starch, co-solvent, bio-enzyme formulation, water softener, and other additives, an analogous art (see Abstract). Sun further discloses the composition may comprise 20-50wt% of surfactant (see Col 1 line 67). Sun further discloses the co-solvent at 1%-12% (see Col 2 line 2). Sun further discloses the co-solvent may comprise glycerol and propylene glycol (see Col 4 line 34-35) and the co-solvent has a certain dissolving effect on common stains, and can cooperate with surfactants to quickly remove stains (see Col 4 line 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the glycerol and propylene glycol of Sun in the detergent tablet of Smith, Holderbaum, Gartstein, and Geldman for the purpose of quickly removing stains, as disclosed by Sun.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20080276967 A1), Holderbaum (US 20050225003 A1), Gartstein (US 20150030643 A1), Gelderman (US 20190144784 A1), and Sun (US 11760962 B1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schubert (US 20160244698 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Smith, Holderbaum, Gartstein, Geldman, and Sun disclose all of the limitations of claim 7.
However, Smith, Holderbaum, Gartstein, Geldman, and Sun fail to disclose the softening conditioner is cationic cellulose.
Schubert discloses fabric cleaning and/or treatment compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Schubert further discloses anionic and nonionic surfactants (see [0259]). Schubert further discloses less than 10wt% water (see [0071]). Schubert further discloses the compositions may be in the form of a wipe (see [0022]). Schubert further teaches the compositions may comprise cationic cellulose derivates at 0.01-10%, which significantly enhance the deposition of the fabric care benefit agent onto the fabric (see [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the cationic cellulose derivates of Schubert in the detergent tablet of Smith, Holderbaum, Gartstein, Geldman, and Sun for the purpose of enhancing the deposition of the fabric care benefit agent onto the fabric, as disclosed by Schubert.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 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.
Applicant argues that Foshan provides no motivation for selecting laurinol polyether sodium sulphate, only discloses 10-20wt% of filler, and fails to suggest a forming stabilizer. As Foshan is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Foshan are moot.
Applicant further argues unexpected results. The claims are not commensurate in scope with the disclosed results. No concentration of deionized water is given in the instant specifications. Further, highly specific surfactants are disclosed, including AES and AEO-9. A broader range of surfactants is disclosed in the instant claims. The weight percentages disclosed in the instant specifications are further narrower than those disclosed in the instant claims. Therefore, as stated above, the results are not commensurate in scope with 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights