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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are pending. Claim 10 is canceled and claims 1 and 12 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zerhusen (US10377966b2) are withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zerhusen (US10377966B2) in view of DiCosimo (US20210171867A1) are withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zerhusen (US10377966B2) in view of Keningley (US20230148247A1) is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zerhusen (US10377966B2) in view of DiCosimo (US20210171867A1) further in view of Keningley (US20230148247A1) is withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Please note, the prior art above may be reapplied in the future after the Applicant corrects the new grounds of rejection made below:
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 12, the phrase “wherein the anti-microbial particles are substantially free of surfactant and detersive actives” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what is excluded from the anti-microbial particles. The term “detersive active” is defined as “surfactants, builders, bleach actives, enzymes, polymers, chelants, softeners, suds suppressors, suds boosters, brighteners, dye transfer inhibitors, and the like” (see Specification PGPUB [0096]). The surfactant limitation is included both in the claim and the definition of “detersive active”, which is commonly understood to include surfactants (i.e., a double inclusion of the composition being free of surfactants). Additionally, “polymers” and the phrase “and the like” leaves the detersive active component open-ended to include perfumes, solvents, bleach, and any other common detergent component. Finally, it is unclear how the composition can be substantially free of surfactant if didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC) and methyl-diisopropanolamine-based quaternary ammonium compounds are listed as a suitable anti-microbial agents (line 7). It is known in the art that DDAC and ester quaternary ammonium compounds are cationic surfactants with antimicrobial, surface activity altering, and detersive properties. Hence, the metes and bounds of the “substantially free of surfactant and detersive active” limitation in claims 1 and 12 are not clearly defined and contradict some of the requirements of the particle composition.
Claims 2-11 inherit this rejection.
With regards to claims 3, the provided examples of water-soluble carriers including polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol polyoxyalkylene, polyethylene glycol fatty acid ester, polyethylene glycol ether, and starch are all polymers and hence, overlap with the provided definition of detersive actives (see Specification [0096]). It is unclear what comprises detersive active polymers and how the composition can comprise of the above recited water-soluble carriers while being substantially free of detersive active polymers.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation polyethylene glycol, and the claim also recites polyethylene glycol having a weight average molecular weight from 2,000 to 20,000 Daltons, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With regards to claims 4, the perfume limitation overlaps with the provided definition of detersive actives (see Specification [0096]). It is unclear what comprises detersive actives and how the composition can comprise of perfumes while being substantially free of detersive actives.
With regards to claim 5, the colorant limitation overlaps with the provided definition of detersive actives (see Specification [0096]). It is unclear what comprises detersive actives and how the composition can comprise of colorants while being substantially free of detersive actives.
With regards to claims 7, the percarbonate and TAED limitations overlap with the provided definition of detersive actives which recites beach activators and bleaches (see Specification [0096]). It is known in the art that percarbonate is bleach and TAED is a bleach activator. Hence, it is unclear what comprises detersive actives and how the composition can comprise of percarbonate and TAED while being substantially free of detersive actives.
With regards to claims 8, the requirement for the composition to comprise polyakylene glycol, percarbonate, and TAED overlap with the provided definition of detersive actives (see Specification [0096]). As recited above, it is unclear what comprises detersive actives and how the composition can comprise of percarbonate, polyalkylene glycol, and TAED while being substantially free of detersive actives.
With regards to claim 9, the phrase “wherein the laundry additive composition is present in an amount ranging from 0.05% to 30% by weight in said laundry care composition” (lines 1-2) is indefinite because it is unclear what the laundry care composition comprises besides the additive particle composition. For example, it is unclear whether the laundry care composition must also be substantially free of surfactant and detergent actives.
With regards to claim 12, the requirement for the composition to comprise polyethylene glycol, sodium percarbonate, TAED, and perfumes overlap with the provided definition of detersive actives (see Specification [0096]). As recited above, it is unclear what comprises detersive actives and how the composition can comprise of percarbonate, polyethylene glycol, perfumes, and TAED while being substantially free of detersive actives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-12 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.
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
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
