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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and subject to examination on the merits.
Response to Amendments
In view of the new limitations introduced in the 7/7/2026 claim amendments, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn and replaced with a new set of non-statutory double patenting rejections in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 7/7/2026 Remarks have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 rejections are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In view of the new limitations introduced in the 7/7/2026 claim amendments, the RECKITT reference is no longer used for the prior-art rejections.
Examiner’s Comments
This Office Action does not contain any prior-art rejections for Claims 13-15. But Claims 13-15 still have Double Patenting and 35 USC 112 issues that must be resolved; once resolved, Claims 13-15 may be strong candidates for advancing prosecution.
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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12371643 (hereinafter “Conflicting Patent”) in view of GROOT et al. (European Publication EP1394065A1).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT at Fig. 1A (a pouch having only two chambers); at ¶¶ 0079, 0082 (each chamber may have a liquid formulation having a solvent such as monopropylene glycol, monoethanolamine, or water).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 13 are recited in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 14 appears in Claim 2 of the Conflicting Patent. The subject matter of Claim 15 appears in Claim 3 of the Conflicting Patent.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 2-6 and 8-12. In other words, each of Claims 2-6 and 8-12 recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Conflicting Patent.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,629 (hereinafter “First Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 14 of the First Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 13 are recited in Claim 14 of the First Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the First Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the First Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 9 appears in Claim 10 of the First Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 11 of the First Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 12 of the First Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the First Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 14 appears in Claim 15 of the First Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the First Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,640 (hereinafter “Second Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 14 of the Second Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 13 are recited in Claim 14 of the Second Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Second Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Second Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 11 of the Second Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 12 of the Second Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the Second Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 14 appears in Claim 15 of the Second Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8-9; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Second Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,650 (hereinafter “Third Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 14 of the Third Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 13 are recited in Claim 14 of the Third Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Third Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Third Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 11 of the Third Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 12 of the Third Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the Third Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 14 appears in Claim 15 of the Third Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8-9; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Third Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 9-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,657 (hereinafter “Fourth Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 13 of the Fourth Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 13 are recited in Claim 13 of the Fourth Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 9 appears in Claim 9 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 10 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 11 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 12 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 14 appears in Claim 14 of the Fourth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 15 appears in Claim 15 of the Fourth Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Fourth Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 13-15 of copending Application No. 18/736,668 (hereinafter “Fifth Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 14 of the Fifth Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 13 are recited in Claim 14 of the Fifth Reference Application, except for the limitations “the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber” and “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitations are already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Fifth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Fifth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the Fifth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 14 appears in Claim 15 of the Fifth Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8-11; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Fifth Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/097,121 (hereinafter “Sixth Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Sixth Reference Application, except for the limitation “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitation is already taught by the prior art. See GROOT at ¶¶ 0079, 0082 (each chamber may have a solvent such as monopropylene glycol, monoethanolamine, or water).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 or 3 of the Sixth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 2 or 3 of the Sixth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 9 appears in Claim 4 of the Sixth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 5 of the Sixth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 6 of the Sixth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 17 of the Sixth Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Sixth Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 19/707,479 (hereinafter “Seventh Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Seventh Reference Application, except for the limitation “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitation is already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Seventh Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Seventh Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 9 appears in Claim 10 of the Seventh Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 11 of the Seventh Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 12 of the Seventh Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the Seventh Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Seventh Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 11-13 of copending Application No. 19/707,489 (hereinafter “Eighth Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Eighth Reference Application, except for the limitation “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitation is already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Eighth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Eighth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 11 of the Eighth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 12 of the Eighth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the Eighth Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8-9; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Eighth Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9-12 of copending Application No. 19/707,496 (hereinafter “Nineth Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Nineth Reference Application, except for the limitation “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitation is already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Nineth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Nineth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 9 appears in Claim 9 of the Nineth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 10 appears in Claim 10 of the Nineth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 11 appears in Claim 11 of the Nineth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 12 of the Nineth Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Nineth Reference Application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 13 of copending Application No. 19/707,508 (hereinafter “Tenth Reference Application”) in view of GROOT.
Almost all of the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in Claim 1 of the Tenth Reference Application, except for the limitation “the second chamber contains solvent.” But such missing limitation is already taught by the prior art. See GROOT (discussed above).
The subject matter of Claim 2 appears in Claim 2 of the Tenth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 3 appears in Claim 3 of the Tenth Reference Application. The subject matter of Claim 12 appears in Claim 13 of the Tenth Reference Application.
Moreover, GROOT teaches or reasonably suggests the subject matters of Claims 4-6 and 8-11; in other words, each of those claims recites an invention that is an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the Tenth Reference Application.
Claim Objections
In Claim 1 line 4, the verb “are” should be changed to “comprise,” i.e., “the separate chambers [[are]] comprise: (a) a first chamber; and (b) a second chamber . . . .” This is because the claim language earlier recites “at least two separate chambers.”
In Claim 11 line 1, “the linking portion of film” should be changed to “the linking portion of water-soluble film” to keep the language consistent across claims.
In Claim 13 on pg. 4 line 1, “the linking portion of film” should be changed to “the linking portion of water-soluble film” to keep the language consistent across claims.
In Claim 13 on pg. 4 line 7, “this pre-washing step” should be changed to “the pre-wash” to keep the language consistent; the claim earlier recites “a pre-wash” at pg. 4 line 4.
In Claim 13 on pg. 4 line 8, the definite article “the” should be placed before “washing zone,” i.e., “the washing zone.”
In Claim 13 on pg. 4 line 15, “this main washing step” should be changed to “the main wash” to keep the language consistent; the claim earlier recites “a main wash” at pg. 4 line 11.
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 13-15 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 13 recites “the washing zone” on pg. 4 line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation; it should be changed to “a washing zone.”
Claims 14-15 are rejected because they depend on Claim 13.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GROOT et al. (European Publication EP1394065A1).
Regarding Claim 1, GROOT teaches an automatic dishwashing detergent (see ¶¶ 0001, 0037, 0043) water-soluble pouch (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0071).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GROOT teaches the pouch comprises a water-soluble film (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0014, 0066, 0068, 0071) that forms two separate chambers that are enclosed by the water-soluble film (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0071), the separate chambers are (a) a first chamber (see annotated Fig. 1A, either chamber may be considered the “first chamber”) and (b) a second chamber (see id., the other chamber would be the “second chamber”), wherein the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0071).
GROOT teaches the water-soluble film comprises a linking portion of water-soluble film extending between the first chamber and the second chamber (see annotated Fig. 1A above). GROOT teaches that the linking portion is formed by the shorter side (e.g., about 29 mm) of the larger rectangular chamber and the longer side (e.g., about 29 mm) of the smaller rectangular chamber (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0071), which means a length of the linking portion of water-soluble film between the first chamber and second chamber is about 29 mm or about 2.9 cm. This length of about 2.9 cm falls within the claimed range of “at least 0.5cm.”
GROOT teaches the first chamber and the second chamber contain detergent ingredients (see ¶¶ 0079-82), and the second chamber contains solvent (see ¶¶ 0081-82, either chamber may contain a liquid composition; see ¶¶ 0079, 0082, the liquid composition comprises ingredients such as monoethanolamine, monopropylene glycol, and water, each of which may be considered as a solvent).
Regarding Claim 2, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the length of the linking portion of water-soluble film between the first chamber and second chamber is about 2.9 cm (¶ 0071), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 1.2cm.”
Regarding Claim 3, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the length of the linking portion of water-soluble film between the first chamber and second chamber is about 2.9 cm (¶ 0071), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 1.5cm.”
Regarding Claim 4, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the second chamber (e.g., the larger chamber) contains 18 grams of a liquid formulation (see ¶ 0082) comprising ingredients such as monopropylene glycol, monoethanolamine, and water (see id.), each of which may be considered as a solvent.
As a first example: a solvent such as monopropylene glycol takes up 25 wt% of the liquid formulation (see ¶ 0082), wherein 25% × 18 g = 4.5 g. In other words, the second chamber contains 4.5 g of the solvent monopropylene glycol, wherein 4.5 g falls within the claimed range of “about 0.5g to about 10 g.”
As a second example: a solvent such as monoethanolamine takes up 9.5 wt% of the liquid formulation (see ¶ 0082), wherein 9.5% × 18 g = 1.71 g. In other words, the second chamber contains 1.71 g of the solvent monoethanolamine, wherein 1.71 g falls within the claimed range of “about 0.5g to about 10 g.”
As a third example: a solvent such as water takes up 3.0 wt% of the liquid formulation (see ¶ 0082), wherein 3.0% × 18 g = 0.54 g. In other words, the second chamber contains 0.54 g of the solvent water, wherein 0.54 g falls within the claimed range of “about 0.5g to about 10 g.”
Regarding Claim 5, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the solvent is an alkanolamine (see ¶¶ 0079, 0082, monoethanolamine).
Regarding Claim 6, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the solvent is monoethanolamine (see ¶¶ 0079, 0082).
Regarding Claim 8, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches wherein the second chamber comprises a second chamber liquid detergent composition that comprises the solvent (see ¶¶ 0079, 0082).
Regarding Claim 9, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the first chamber (e.g., the larger chamber) has the following dimensions:
(i) a maximum length of about 33 mm (¶ 0071) or about 3.3 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”;
(ii) a maximum width of about 29 mm (¶ 0071) or about 2.9 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”; and
(iii) a maximum height of about 15 mm (¶ 0071) or about 1.5 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm.”
Regarding Claim 10, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the second chamber (e.g., the smaller chamber) has the following dimensions:
(i) a maximum length of about 29 mm (¶ 0071) or about 2.9 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”;
(ii) a maximum width of about 16 mm (¶ 0071) or about 1.6 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”; and
(iii) a maximum height of about 7 mm (¶ 0071) or about 0.7 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 0.1cm to about 10.0cm.”
Regarding Claim 12, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches the water-soluble film comprises polyvinyl alcohol (see ¶¶ 0005, 0066, 0068, 0073).
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN GINK et al. (European Publication EP1375637A1).
Regarding Claim 1, VAN GINK teaches an automatic dishwashing detergent (see ¶¶ 0001, 0034, 0038) water-soluble pouch (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0066).
PNG
media_image2.png
417
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
VAN GINK teaches the pouch comprises a water-soluble film (see ¶¶ 0005, 0060-61, 0066) that forms two separate chambers that are enclosed by the water-soluble film (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0066), the separate chambers are (a) a first chamber (see annotated Fig. 1A) and (b) a second chamber (see id.), wherein the water-soluble film forms no separate chamber between the first chamber and the second chamber (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0066).
VAN GINK teaches the water-soluble film comprises a linking portion of water-soluble film extending between the first chamber and the second chamber (see annotated Fig. 1A above). VAN GINK teaches that the linking portion is formed by the shorter side (e.g., about 29 mm) of the larger rectangular chamber and the longer side (e.g., about 29 mm) of the smaller rectangular chamber (see Fig. 1A, ¶ 0066), which means a length of the linking portion of water-soluble film between the first chamber and second chamber is about 29 mm or about 2.9 cm. This length of about 2.9 cm falls within the claimed range of “at least 0.5cm.”
VAN GINK teaches the first chamber and the second chamber contain detergent ingredients (see ¶¶ 0075, 0077, 0079, the larger chamber has solid formulation 1, the smaller chamber has a semi-solid formulation), and the second chamber contains solvent (see ¶ 0077, the smaller chamber has a semi-solid formulation comprising monopropylene glycol).
Regarding Claim 2, VAN GINK teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. VAN GINK teaches wherein the length of the linking portion of water-soluble film between the first chamber and second chamber is about 2.9 cm (as explained above), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 1.2cm.”
Regarding Claim 3, VAN GINK teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. VAN GINK teaches wherein the length of the linking portion of water-soluble film between the first chamber and second chamber is about 2.9 cm (as explained above), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 1.5cm.”
Regarding Claim 9, VAN GINK teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. VAN GINK teaches the first chamber (e.g., the larger chamber) has the following dimensions:
(i) a maximum length of about 33 mm (¶ 0066) or about 3.3 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”;
(ii) a maximum width of about 29 mm (¶ 0066) or about 2.9 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”; and
(iii) a maximum height of about 15 mm (¶ 0066) or about 1.5 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm.”
Regarding Claim 10, VAN GINK teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. VAN GINK teaches the second chamber (e.g., the smaller chamber) has the following dimensions:
(i) a maximum length of about 29 mm (¶ 0066) or about 2.9 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”;
(ii) a maximum width of about 16 mm (¶ 0066) or about 1.6 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm”; and
(iii) a maximum height of about 7 mm (¶ 0066) or about 0.7 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 0.1cm to about 10.0cm.”
Regarding Claim 12, VAN GINK teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. VAN GINK teaches wherein the water-soluble film comprises polyvinyl alcohol (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0005, 0061, 0063, 0067, 0069).
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROOT (as applied to Claim 1 above), in view of DELPLANCKE et al. (US PGPUB 20190256802).
Regarding Claim 7, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. As explained above, GROOT’s water-soluble pouch contains an automatic dishwashing detergent composition therein (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0079-82), the composition having a solvent (see id.).
GROOT does not explicitly teach “the solvent is methylglucamine.”
DELPLANCKE teaches an automatic dishwashing detergent composition (see abstract, ¶¶ 0007, 0015, claims 1-14) comprising an amine solvent (see id.). The amine solvent improves the removal of cooked-, baked- and burnt-on soils from dishware and/or reduce spotting on dishware (see ¶¶ 0006, 0051). A suitable amine solvent is methylglucamine (see ¶ 0059).
DELPLANCKE teaches that the composition may be packed into a water-soluble pouch (see ¶¶ 0146-47) comprising a water-soluble film (see ¶¶ 0146-47, PVA film) that forms two separate chambers—i.e., a first chamber and a second chamber—enclosed by the water-soluble film (see ¶ 0147, two compartments). DELPLANCKE teaches that each of the two chambers contains detergent ingredients (see ¶¶ 0146-47), and each chamber (including the second chamber) contains an amine solvent (see id.). As explained above, a suitable amine solvent would be methylglucamine.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify GROOT’s automatic dishwashing detergent composition to incorporate an amine solvent such as methylglucamine, with reasonable expectation of cleaning dishes.
First, the amine solvent improves the removal of cooked-, baked- and burnt-on soils from dishware and/or reduce spotting on dishware; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate an amine solvent such as methylglucamine into GROOT’s automatic dishwashing detergent composition.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art for an automatic dishwashing detergent composition to comprise an amine solvent such as methylglucamine (see DELPLANCKE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could've combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
As an alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute GROOT’s automatic dishwashing detergent composition with DELPLANCKE’s automatic dishwashing detergent composition—i.e., package DELPLANCKE’s automatic dishwashing detergent composition into GROOT’s water-soluble pouch —with reasonable expectation of cleaning dishes.
First, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. Both GROOT’s composition and DELPLANCKE’s composition are detergent compositions suitable to be packaged into a water-soluble pouch having two chambers and used in an automatic dishwasher. Thus, substituting GROOT’s composition with DELPLANCKE’s composition would yield the predictable result of releasing detergent from the pouch into the dishwasher during dishwashing operations.
Second, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, C. DELPLANCKE explicitly teaches that its composition may be packed into a water-soluble pouch comprising a water-soluble film that forms two separate chambers, and GROOT teaches a water-soluble pouch comprising a water-soluble film that forms two separate chambers. Thus, packaging DELPLANCKE’s composition into GROOT’s water-soluble pouch would yield the predictable result of releasing the composition into a dishwasher during dishwashing operations.
In the resulting combination of GROOT and DELPLANCKE: in the water-soluble pouch, the second chamber would comprise an amine solvent such as methylglucamine.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROOT et al. (European Publication EP1394065A1).
Regarding Claim 11, GROOT teaches the pouch according to Claim 1. GROOT teaches that, in the embodiment of Fig. 1A, the linking portion of film has the following dimensions:
(i) a maximum length of about 29 mm (as explained above; see ¶ 0071) or about 2.9 cm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 0.5cm to about 25cm”;
(ii) a maximum width of 3 mm (¶ 0071) or about 0.3 cm.
GROOT does not explicitly teach that, in the embodiment of Fig. 1A, the linking portion has a maximum width of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm.”
BUT GROOT explicitly teaches that the linking portion may have a width in the range of “from 1 to 10 mm” (see ¶ 0014, 0016, 0019), which converts to “from 0.1 cm to 1 cm.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Fig. 1A such that the linking portion has a maximum width in the range of from 0.1 cm to 1 cm, with reasonable expectation of separating the chambers. GROOT explicitly teaches that the linking portion may have a width in the range of “from 1 to 10 mm” (i.e., “from 0.1 cm to 1 cm”) and it’s generally considered obvious to change size. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.
In the resulting modification: the linking portion would have a maximum width of from 0.1 cm to 1 cm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “from about 1.0cm to about 10.0cm.” Given this overlap, the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
COOLEY et al. (US PGPUB 20160130538) teaches a water-soluble pouch comprising a first chamber, a second chamber, and a linking portion between the two chambers (see Figs. 6-7), wherein no additional chamber is formed between the two chambers (see id.), and wherein a gap/distance between the two chambers is 1-10 mm, or 0.1-1 cm (see ¶ 0035).
CAMIRE et al. (US PGPUB 20190017001) teaches a water-soluble pouch comprising a first chamber (e.g., an outer compartment), a second chamber (e.g., an inner compartment), and a linking portion between the two chambers (see Fig. 1), wherein no additional chamber is formed between the two chambers (see id.), and wherein a gap/distance between the two chambers is 1-10 mm, or 0.1-1 cm (see ¶ 0094).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
