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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
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 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-20 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, 5-8 and 10-19 except for the specific recitation of the proteases, amylases and bleaches.
However, proteases, amylases and 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 and Hummrich et al. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of enzymes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include proteases, amylases, bleaches 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 and 9: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of proteases and amylases in milligrams.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of the referenced enzymes in milligrams depending from the total weight of the pouch, specifics of the detergent composition and the used enzymes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 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, 5-8 and 10-19 except for the specific recitation of the proteases, amylases and bleaches.
However, proteases, amylases and 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 and Hummrich et al. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of enzymes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include proteases, amylases, bleaches 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 and 9: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of proteases and amylases in milligrams.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of the referenced enzymes in milligrams depending from the total weight of the pouch, specifics of the detergent composition and the used enzymes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/736,640 (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, 5-8 and 10-19 except for the specific recitation of the proteases, amylases and bleaches.
However, proteases, amylases and 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 and Hummrich et al. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of enzymes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include proteases, amylases, bleaches 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 and 9: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of proteases and amylases in milligrams.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of the referenced enzymes in milligrams depending from the total weight of the pouch, specifics of the detergent composition and the used enzymes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-20 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, 5-8 and 10-19 except for the specific recitation of the proteases, amylases and bleaches.
However, proteases, amylases and 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 and Hummrich et al. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of enzymes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include proteases, amylases, bleaches 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 and 9: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of proteases and amylases in milligrams.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of the referenced enzymes in milligrams depending from the total weight of the pouch, specifics of the detergent composition and the used enzymes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-20 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, 5-19 except for the specific recitation of the protease.
However, proteases 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. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of enzymes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include proteases 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 claim 4: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of protease in milligrams.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of protease in milligrams depending from the specifics of the detergent composition and the protease used.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 24-26 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, 5-8, 10-13 and 16-19 except for the specific recitation of the proteases, amylases and bleaches.
However, proteases, amylases and 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 and Hummrich et al. Hummrich et al also teach the use of the specific variants of enzymes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to include proteases, amylases, bleaches 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 and 9: modified claims of the reference application recite the limitation of the claim except the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of proteases and amylases in milligrams.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of the referenced enzymes in milligrams depending from the total weight of the pouch, specifics of the detergent composition and the used enzymes.
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 proteases and amylases.
However, the referenced enzymes 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 proteases and amylases 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 § 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) 1-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1375637 in view of any one of in view of DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al (US 2016/0208202).
As to claims 1, 8 and17:
EP 1375637 teaches a pouch.
The pouch comprises the chamber as claimed (at least Figures 1a-g, 2).
The pouch comprises a water-soluble film as claimed (polyvinyl alcohol film) (at least [0063]).
The chambers are disclosed as connected by a linking portion of the water-soluble film (at least Figures 1a-g, 2) with the length as claimed (at least [0016]).
The pouch is disclosed as comprising detergent (at least [0032-59]) and enzymes (at least [0035] and [0055]).
EP 1375637 does n ot specifically exemplify the use of protease and amylase.
However, DE 202021003342 and Hummrich et al teach that the claimed enzymes were used in multicompartment pouches for dishwashing. See at least [0116-128] of Hummich et al and page 18 of DE 202021003342.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to utilize theenzymes recited by Hummrich et al and DE 202021003342 in the pouches of EP 1375637 in order to use a known product for its known purpose.
As to claims 2, 3, 16, 19:
The sizes of the linking portion and the chambers recited by these claims are clearly envisaged by the disclosure of EP 1375637 at [0016].
As to claim 4:
Modified EP 1375637, as applied above, teaches a pouch as claimed except for the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of the protease in milligrams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of enzyme (protease) in milligrams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the enzyme used by routine experimentation.
As to claim 5 and 10:
Modified EP 1375637 teaches a pouch as claimed except for the specific recitation of the claimed variants of enzymes.
Hummrich et al teach that the claimed variants of the enzymes were used in multicompartment pouches for dishwashing. See at least [0116-128].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to utilize the variants of enzymes recited by Hummrich et al in the pouches of EP 1375637 in order to use a known product for its known purpose.
As to claims 6-7:
EP 1375637 teaches the use of both liquid and solid compositions. See at least [0032-36].
As to claim 9:
Modified EP 1375637, as applied above, teaches a pouch as claimed except for the specific recitation of the claimed amounts of the amylase in milligrams.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum amount of enzyme (amylase) in milligrams depending from the specifics of the application and the specifics of the enzyme used by routine experimentation.
As to claims 11-12:
EP 1375637 teaches the use of both bleach containing compositions and compositions without bleach. See at least [0035], [0037].
As to claim 13:
The claimed PVA is disclosed at least at [0063].
AS to claim 18:
The pouch with two chambers is shown at least on Figures 1a-g and disclosed at least at the Abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims, cancelled claim 18 and filed new claims 19-20.
The amended and new claims have been examined and are addressed in the rejections above.
The teaching of EP 1375637 has been used to address the newly introduced limitations.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights