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 .
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, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NG Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1) in view of Mangin et al. (US 2003/0069155A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leung teaches a container (i.e. package) made from cellulose, paper or cardboard (biodegradable); [abstract, 21, 39, 47-48, claim 8],
comprising plurality of unit dose pouches (articles); [25, 39, 125], containing detergent composition in the amounts of 10-40 gr; [ 29]. The teaching on the amount of detergent is not anticipatory. However, with respect to claim 2, the lower amount of detergent by Leung (10gr) corresponds to higher amount instant claim (9.5gr) which are construed as statistically an obvious touching range. An experimental lowering of Leung by 1-3gr, or an increase of about 1-2gr for instant claimed amount (9.5gr) would not adversely affect chemical efficacy of the claimed invention wherein by which the instantly claimed 9.5gr is rendered obvious. Furthermore, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected [the claimed product and a product disclosed in the prior art] to have the same properties.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [MPEP 2131.03, R6].
Regarding claim 1, Assuming that Leung does not render the amended amount of detergent obvious, then analogous art of Mangin teaches a kit of water soluble pouches for dishwashing or laundry detergents (1, 2, 3, 5, 168) wherein the pouch contains less than 10 ml of liquid detergent composition. Assuming the density of liquid detergent is slightly higher than water the stated amount of “less than 10 ml” by Mangin does indeed render the instantly claimed amount of “3-8 grams” obvious. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a lesser amounts of detergent for specifically intended washing process as taught by Mangin above.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7-8, Leung teaches nonaqueous solvents such as glycerol, 1-2 propane diol and PEG; [99]. Leung teaches a water-based barrier coating such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) or wax; [54], and the unit dose detergent comprises water in amounts of less than 12%; [87], and bittering agent; [37].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NG Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1), Mangin et al. (US 2003/0069155 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0319925 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Leung does not teach the barrier coating material being thermoplastic elastomer. However, the analogous art of Lu teaches application of non-reinforced polyurethane thermoplastic elastomer (film) for covering consumer product containers such as liquid balk storage (e.g. milk, juices…etc.) and packaging of medical material; [90-91]. Lu and Leung are related art that of packaged material with barrier protective coating(s) with strength and elasticity. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier coating of Lu for Leung’s containers with the motivation of taking advantage of polyurethane thermoplastic elastomer physical properties (flexibility, malleability, strength and durability) in protecting the content of containers from damaging elements such as transportation impacts or humidity.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NG Pak Leung et al. (US 2021/0047072 A1), Mangin et al. (US 2003/0069155A1),
as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dasque et al. (US 2018/0092590 A1).
Regarding claims 9-11, Leung teach a detergent comprising dye; [90], but does not teach the phthalocyanine based pigment. However, the analogous art of Dasque teaches a unit dose detergent composition for fabric treatment (abstract) comprising phthalocyanine based pigment; [130-131]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further add the pigment of Dasque to Leung’s detergent composition with the motivation of protecting the composition by an opacifying agent (i.e. UV light) as taught by Dasque above. Leung teaches (instant claim 10) chelating agent (90) but does not teach its type. However, Dasque teaches a phosphonic acid derivative chelating agent; [142-143]. It would have been obvious to add the phosphonic acid chelating agent of Dasque to Leung’s composition as a functional equivalent ingredient for further reducing deposition of salt scales on fabric substrates. Leung teaches (instant claim 11) perfume agent (70) but does not teach its type. However, Dasque teaches perfumes such as methyl nonyl acetaldehyde, beta ionon and tonalid; [135-136]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to add the perfume agent of Dasque to Leung’s composition as a functional equivalent ingredient for deodorizing and further aromatizing the fabrics for enhanced washing results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on new combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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
2026/08/08
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights