DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 22, 2026.
2 The rejection of the claims under 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment.
3 The rejection of the claims under 103 over Hall et al. (WO 9804662 A1) in view of Heinzman et al. (US 20030130152 A1) is maintained for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on April 22, 2026.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
4 Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 103, applicant argued that Hall et al. (WO’ 662 A1) Heinzman et al. (US’ 152 A1) do not teach or disclose the weight ratio of the carbonate salt to the acid as specifically from 1:2 to 2:1 as recited in the amended claims. Applicant also argued that the claimed carbonate salt-to-acid represents a critical balance required to achieve both acceptable tablet integrity during storage and rabid tablet disintegration during the wash cycle and the applicant referred to the claimed specification in the application Publication at paragraphs, 7-9 and 50.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because Hall et al. (WO’ 662 A1) clearly teaches a detergent composition in the form of a tablet (see page 33, lines 34-35), wherein the detergent composition comprises an alkaline salt of alkali metal carbonate in an amount of from about 2% to about 75% by wt., and organic acid source in an amount of up to 15% by wt., of the detergent composition (see claims 4, 9 and 10). Therefore, and based on the teaching of Hall et al. (WO’ 662 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to optimize the weight ratio of the carbonate salt and acid in the tablet detergent composition of Hall et al. (WO’ 662 A1) in order to get the maximum effective amounts of the these ingredients in the tablet detergent composition.
Further, the claimed specification in the application Publication at paragraphs, 7-9 recite the benefits of the composition in the form of tablets, such benefits include dissolving property and transportation and/or storage and dissolution behavior of the solid fabric and wherein the paragraphs, do not recite any benefit based on the claimed weight ratio of carbonate to acid to support the applicant’s arguments (see paragraphs, 0007 to 0009). Paragraph 50 in the application publication recites the weight ratio between the carbonate salt and the acid, while the paragraph does not recite any criticality of the claimed weight ratio to support the applicant’s argument.
Furthermore, the claimed specification in the application Publication recites the weight of the acids in the detergent composition in different percentage weights (see paragraph, 0047), while the claimed specification is silent about the weight of carbonates in the claimed detergent composition.
Therefore, and based on the teaching of Hall et al. (WO’ 662 A1), it would have been obvious to the person of the ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amounts and the weight ratio between the carbonate and the acid in the tablet detergent composition in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the tablet detergent composition.
Applicants have not shown on record the criticality of the claimed weight ratio of the carbonate salt to the acid in the claimed composition over the detergent composition of the closest prior art. Therefore, the rejection under 103 is proper and maintained.
5 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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, 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights