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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received April 29, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
All rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansergh et al, US 2018/0282665 in view of Dimotakis et al, US 2024/0199988.
Mansergh et al teach an automatic dishwashing detergent in cast solid, extruded pellet or tablet form (¶155) comprising 61 parts dense soda ash, 1 part Plurafac SLF-180, 6.5 parts MGDA, 6.5 parts EDTA, 16 parts sodium silicate (¶165, table 5A experiment 2), wherein the solid is diluted for use, the use solution has a pH of from 10 to 12.5 (¶51), and the compositions may be used as a unit dose or a block for multiple cycles (¶155).
With respect to claim 13, the chelants are added in granular and liquid form and mixed until a homogeneous liquid is formed that is allowed to cool into a solid (see again experiment 2 and ¶153)
With respect to claim 17, the examiner maintains that all dishwashers are “undercounter” dishwashers, or have the ability to be so, and in any event, the location of a dishwasher has zero effect on the patentability of the detergent used.
Mansergh et al does not teach a blend of light ash and dense ash.
Dimotakis et al teach a powdered detergent composition comprising a mixture of light soda ash and dense soda ash. It was discovered that in some aspects, light soda ash can absorb one or more liquid components of the detergent composition to provide a powdered detergent that can be compressed. When both light soda ash and dense soda ash are used, the light soda ash and dense soda ash can be used in a 1:1 mixture (¶45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of light and dense soda ash in the tablets of Mansergh et al as Dimotakis et al specifically teach a blend of light and dense soda ash as having beneficial properties for forming detergent tablets.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Detering et al, US 2021/0238504 in view of Dimotakis et al, US 2024/0199988.
Detering et al teach a solid automatic dishwashing detergent comprising 35% sodium carbonate, 5% Plurafac SLF-180, 12% MGDA, 10% sodium percarbonate, and 3% sodium silicate (¶227, formulation B). Note that these detergents can be present in tablet form (¶128).
With respect to claim 17, the examiner maintains that all dishwashers are “undercounter” dishwashers, or have the ability to be so, and in any event, the location of a dishwasher has zero effect on the patentability of the detergent used.
Detering et al does not teach a blend of light ash and dense ash.
Dimotakis et al teach a powdered detergent composition comprising a mixture of light soda ash and dense soda ash. It was discovered that in some aspects, light soda ash can absorb one or more liquid components of the detergent composition to provide a powdered detergent that can be compressed. When both light soda ash and dense soda ash are used, the light soda ash and dense soda ash can be used in a 1:1 mixture (¶45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of light and dense soda ash in the tablets of Detering et al as Dimotakis et al specifically teach a blend of light and dense soda ash as having beneficial properties for forming detergent tablets.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zabarylo et al, US 2005/0101509.
Zabarylo et al teach a detergent tablet comprising 15.75% dense ash, 17% light ash, 3% C12-15 (EO7) nonionic surfactant, 22% citric acid, 5% sodium percarbonate, and 1.25% polyacrylate polymer (¶133, example 3). Preferred nonionic surfactants of the invention are a C10-16 alcohol with from 1 to 20 moles of ethoxylation and propoxylation (¶56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ethoxy/propoxy alcohol as the nonionic surfactant in example 3 as such surfactants are specifically taught by the reference as suitable. With respect to the method claimed, these tablets have excellent grease cutting properties for hard surfaces, including plastic, glass, and metal surfaces (¶16). The examiner maintains this is precisely what one looks for in a warewashing detergent, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use these tablets for warewashing.
With respect to the pH claimed, as the reference contains sodium carbonate in large amounts, the examiner maintains the diluted composition will be highly alkaline.
With respect to claim 17, the examiner maintains that all dishwashers are “undercounter” dishwashers, or have the ability to be so, and in any event, the location of a dishwasher has zero effect on the patentability of the detergent used.
With respect to the method of making, the powders are dry-blended with an overspray of liquid components (¶75). The examiner maintains mixing solid and liquid ingredients is a standard procedure for forming detergent tablets.
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights