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 .
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 15 and 37 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitations “MOF-5”, “MOF-177” and “MOF-199”. It is unclear as to what specific metal organic framework compounds are being referred to. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 37 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 37 recites the broad recitation “an odor-controlling compound”, followed by the narrow recitation of “such as a zeolite, a cyclodextrin…..”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-18, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kluit et al, WO 2020/047215.
Kluit et al, WO 2020/047215, discloses enzyme-containing granules comprising 10% of a water-soluble polymer, 1-10% of a nonionic surfactant, and 60-90% of an aluminosilicate (see abstract and paragraphs 5-7). It is further taught by Kluit et al that the enzyme granule comprises 30-50% by weight of the core, 10-30% by weight of one or more enzymes, and 5-15% by weight of an aluminosilicate, such as zeolite or kaolin (see paragraph 26), that suitable enzymes include alpha-amylases and protease (see paragraphs 41-54), that the core contains sodium sulfate (see paragraph 55), that the granules contain adjunct ingredients (see paragraphs 59 and 62-69), that the composition is used in a process to wash a fabric or a dish (see paragraphs 70 and 72-76), that suitable water-soluble polymers include polyvinyl alcohol (see Example 1), and that suitable nonionic surfactants include ethoxylated alcohols (i.e., NEODOL; see Example 1), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Example 1, a titanium dioxide enzyme granule formulation which contains 31% by weight of sodium sulfate in the core, a first spray containing 39.49% by weight of an enzyme and 1.8% by weight of polyvinyl alcohol, a second spray containing 16.41% by weight of sodium sulfate, a third spray containing 11.0% by weight of PPNA 0.3% by weight of a Lutensol overcoat, 14% by weight of a zeolite, 1.4% by weight of NEODOL (i.e., a nonionic surfactant), and 14% by weight of ULTEX 96. Therefore, instant claims 1-18, 35 and 37 are anticipated by Kluit et al, WO 2020/047215.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
January 24, 2026