DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 2026/03/04 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant has canceled claim 14 and has withdrawn claims 11-13 and 15.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2003/0129717 A1) in view of Depoot et al. (US 2016/0040105 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-8, Becker teaches a water-soluble film (abstract, 6, 43) comprising carrageenan; [47, 70], plasticizers (instant claims 4-8) such as glycerol (a polyol) in amount of 1-75 wt.% of the film (construed as dry); [49].
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10, Becker does not teach the “at least one surface comprising one or more printed regions” limitation. However, the analogous art of Depoot teaches a laundry care unit dose, a pouch with compartment(s) made of a water soluble film (13, 21-22) comprising carragum (e.g. carrageenan) and glycerol plasticizer; [31, 45], wherein the film has a printed surface area on either side of the film covering 10-80% of its surface; [47-48, 50]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a desired print on the surface of a film (capsule, unit dose…etc.) with the motivation of recognition of a specific brand from the others (brand product identification), or as a printed safety instruction for consumers, as taught above by Depoot. Furthermore, Depoot teaches (instant claim 10) the instantly claimed bittering agent; [55]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to add a bittering agent to the film’s polymeric material with the motivation of providing safety for children and house pets.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2003/0129717 A1), Depoot al. (US 2016/0040105 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Paris et al. (US 6,331,205 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Becker does not teach the instantly claimed film comprising lambda- carrageenan. However, the analogous art of Paris teaches a viscus composition for making hard or soft films or capsules (i.e. different elasticities); [abstract C.2: L.22-41]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use lambda-carrageenan with the motivation of using a film material, such as carrageenan, with its thickening characteristics without gelling properties.
Claims 1 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Depoot et al. (US 2016/0040105 A1) in view of Becker et al. (US 2003/0129717 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 19, Depoot teaches a laundry care (abstract, 13, 16, 56) unit dose (instant claim 19), a pouch (i.e. capsule) with compartment(s) made of a water soluble film (13, 19-22) comprising carragum (e.g. carrageenan) with glycerol plasticizer; [31, 45], wherein the film has a printed surface area on either side of the film covering 10-80% of its surface; [47-48, 50].
Regarding claims 1, Depoot does not teach the amount of plasticizer. However, the analogous art of Becker teaches an identical polymer film for delivery of laundry compositions on fabrics; [72], comprising carrageenan and glycerol as plasticizer in the amount of 1-75 % (i.e. dry weight); [49]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the plasticizer amount of Becker for Depoot with the motivation of trying to adjust the flexibility of water unit dose capsule containing substrates such as laundry composition and its delivery time on fabrics.
Regarding claims 17-18, Depoot teaches each and every limitations of the claims with location of printed regions (internal or external of compartments); [47-48, 50], wherein the internal space compartment (or pouch or capsule) contains active cleaning composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 PM.
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/04/02
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights