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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 05/31/2024, 08/12/2024, 09/05/2024, and 03/23/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group 1 (claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10) without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. Although claim 8 was not elected by the applicant, it is being examined in this Office Action because it is a drawn to the elected invention of Group 1.
Claims 12-14, 18, 21-22, 24, 27, 29-31, 35, 38-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 10 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
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.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach et. al (US5,552,079A) hereinafter Roach.
Roach teaches a compressed tablet detergent composition (see claim 1). With regards to claims 1-2, Roach teaches a preferred formulation comprising 10 wt% soda ash, 21 wt% sodium tripolyphosphate hexahydrate (which further comprises of 2.78 wt% water), 16.3 wt% sodium tripolyphosphate powder, 0.2% sodium dichloro-isocyanurate (ACL-60), 45 wt% caustic beads, 4.5% 5000 molecular weight polyacrylic acid (which further comprises 2.3 wt% free water), 1.5% ethylene oxide propylene oxide (EO/PO) block copolymer non-ionic surfactant, and 1.5% propylene glycol (see Column 4). Roach teaches that the caustic source can be sodium or potassium hydroxide with sodium hydroxide preferred (see Column 2, lines 56-51).
Although Roach doesn’t teach the explicit weight ratio of the alkali metal hydroxide caustic bead to water in the preferred composition, Roach does teach a compressed tablet product comprising 20-70 wt% hydratable sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, about 2.5-10 wt% water of hydration among others (see claims 1 and 4). Hence, the weight ratio of the alkali metal hydroxide caustic bead to water could range from 20:10 (2:1) to 70:10 (7:1) if 10 wt% of water is used in the tablet composition. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use the upper limit of the water wt% range taught by Roach for the benefit of producing a stronger tablet (see Column 3, lines 61-62). With respect to the proportions of 27:73 to about 75:25 (3:1) weight ratio and the weight ratio of 60:40 (1.5:1) to about 70:30 (7:3) of alkali metal hydroxide to water in claims 1 and 6 respectively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the proportion of ingredients in the detergent composition taught by Roach to arrive at the required ratios, since optimization of components would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan in order to obtain the most effective detergent composition, absent a showing otherwise. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 5, Roach teaches the preferred formulation to comprise 10 wt% soda ash (see Column 4) which is recited as a suitable example of a functional anhydrous material in the instant specification (see [0014]). Roach also teaches the use of anhydrous sodium tripolyphosphate in the preferred embodiment (see Column 5, lines 37-40).
With regards to claim 8, Roach teaches the preferred formulation to comprise of 1.5 wt% EO/PO block polymer nonionic surfactant (see Column 4). Roach additionally teaches the use of a hardness sequestering system, low molecular weight water-soluble polymers, non-ionic defoaming surfactants, processing aids and optionally bleaching sources in the tablet detergent composition (see Column 2, lines 46-54).
With regards to claim 10, Roach teaches a compressed tablet detergent comprising 20-70wt% hydratable sodium or potassium hydroxide among others (see claim 1). Roach also teaches the caustic beads to comprise of the alkali metal hydroxide (see Column 2, lines 56-51). With respect to the proportions of less than 40 wt% solid caustic beads, 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 (20-40 wt% of alkali metal hydroxide caustic beads) 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights