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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The applicants filed a new claim 18 which recites that a height of the linking portion is uniform.
The applicants have nor indicated which part of the original disclosure supports the referenced limitation.
The examiner has not been able to find the support for the referenced limitation in the original disclosure.
In contrast the original Figure 2 clearly shows the height of linking portion non-uniformed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/736,657 (reference application) in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
The claims of the referenced application recite all the limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5-18 except for the specific recitation of the bleaches and bleach activators, catalysts.
However, bleaches, bleach activators and catalysts were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al. DE 202021003342 also teach the claimed activators and catalysts and peracids. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of bleaches as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches, activators, catalysts to one of the chambers of the pouch of the claims of the reference application in order to use a known products for their known purpose.
As to claims 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of bleaches in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,692 (reference application) in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
The claims of the referenced application recite all the limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5-17 except for the specific recitation of the bleaches and bleach activators, catalysts.
However, bleaches, bleach activators and catalysts were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al. DE 202021003342 also teach the claimed activators and catalysts and peracids. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of bleaches as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches, activators, catalysts to one of the chambers of the pouch of the claims of the reference application in order to use a known products for their known purpose.
As to claims 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of bleaches in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,668 (reference application) in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
The claims of the referenced application recite all the limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5-10 and 13-17 except for the specific recitation of the bleaches and bleach activators, catalysts.
However, bleaches, bleach activators and catalysts were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al. DE 202021003342 also teach the claimed activators and catalysts and peracids. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of bleaches as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches, activators, catalysts to one of the chambers of the pouch of the claims of the reference application in order to use a known products for their known purpose.
As to claims 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of bleaches in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
As to claims 10-12 it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find optimum dimensions of the pouch by routine examination depending from the specifics of the application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/736,650 (reference application) in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
The claims of the referenced application recite all the limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5-18 except for the specific recitation of the bleaches and bleach activators, catalysts.
However, bleaches, bleach activators and catalysts were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al. DE 202021003342 also teach the claimed activators and catalysts and peracids. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of bleaches as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches, activators, catalysts to one of the chambers of the pouch of the claims of the reference application in order to use a known products for their known purpose.
As to claims 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of bleaches in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/736,629 (reference application) in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
The claims of the referenced application recite all the limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5-18 except for the specific recitation of the bleaches and bleach activators, catalysts.
However, bleaches, bleach activators and catalysts were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al. DE 202021003342 also teach the claimed activators and catalysts and peracids. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of bleaches as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches, activators, catalysts to one of the chambers of the pouch of the claims of the reference application in order to use a known products for their known purpose.
As to claims 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of bleaches in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 21-23 of copending Application No. 19/097,121 (reference application) in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
The claims of the referenced application recite all the limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5-13 and 16-18 except for the specific recitation of the bleaches and bleach activators, catalysts.
However, bleaches, bleach activators and catalysts were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al. DE 202021003342 also teach the claimed activators and catalysts and peracids. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of bleaches as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches, activators, catalysts to one of the chambers of the pouch of the claims of the reference application in order to use a known products for their known purpose.
As to claims 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of bleaches in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,643 in view of DE 202021003342.
The claims of the Patent recite all the limitations of the instant claims except for the specific recitation of the bleach.
However, bleaches were known to be conventional ingredients of the detergents and were known to be included in the multi-chambered water-soluble pouches, as evidenced by DE 202021003342.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include bleaches to one of the chambers of the pouch of the method of the claims of the Patent in order to use a known product for its known purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202021003342.
DE 202021003342 teaches a pouch as claimed.
The pouch comprises a water-soluble film as claimed (polyvinyl alcohol film).
The film is disclosed as forming a first chamber (2 or 3, 20 or 40), a second chamber (3 or 2, 40 or 20) and a third chamber (4, 30).
The first and the second chambers are disclosed as connected by a linking portion of the water-soluble film (inner seal web and the third chamber) with the length as claimed. See at least Figures 1-6, which are scaled and the description at pages 13-15.
The pouch is disclosed as comprising bleach and bleach activators. The disclosed bleach comprises the claimed peracid. The disclosed activators comprise claimed transitional metal complexes and tetraacetylethylenediamine. See at least page 18-19.
As to claims 11-12 DE 202021003342 teaches the sizes as claimed. See at least Figures 2-3, 5-6, which are scaled and the description at pages 13-15.
As to claim 16:
The minimum distance as claimed is shown at least on Figures 4-6.
As to claim 18:
The uniform height of the linking portion is shown at least on Figures 2-3, 5-6.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202021003342.
DE 202021003342, as applied above, teaches a pouch as claimed except for the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of the bleach in grams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of bleach in grams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the bleach used by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202021003342 in view of Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
DE 202021003342, as applied above, teaches a pouch as claimed except for the specific recitation of the claimed bleach.
However, Hummrich et al teach that the claimed bleaches were used in multicompartment pouches for dishwashing. See at least [0012], [0015], [0138-139], [0148].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to utilize the bleaches recited by Hummrich et al in the pouches of DE 202021003342 in order to use a known product for its known purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and filed new claims 16-18.
The amended and new claims have been examined and are addressed in the rejections above.
The applicants allege that the DE 202021003342 does not anticipate or make obvious the amended claims.
This is not persuasive.
In contrast to the applicants’ allegation DE 202021003342 teaches a pouch as recited by the amended claims.
Please, note that the specification defines the length of the linking portion as “The length is typically measured from the outside edge of the film enclosing the first chamber to the outside edge of the film enclosing the second chamber.” (paragraph [0076] of the printed application, also newly filed claim 17).
Please, also note that the claims do not exclude any additional chambers between the first chamber and the second chamber.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the linking portion being free of any additional chambers”. The claim also defines “the linking portion” as connecting the first and the second chamber.
Thus, the claims only require the linking portion with the length measured from the outside edge of the film enclosing the first chamber to the outside edge of the film enclosing the second chamber be “free of any additional chambers”.
Such is clearly show at least on Figures 1-6 of DE 202021003342.
See at least a top or a right side of Figure 4, which clearly shows linking portions (the top and the right parts of the pouch 10 with the film portions without chambers between the outside edges of the chambers 40 and 20) with the lengths as claimed.
The applicants’ arguments directed to an inner sealing membrane are not found persuasive at least because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
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 ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711