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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-33, in the reply filed on May 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 34-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 6, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mac Namara et al. (US 2022/0112449, already cited in IDS dated 07/14/2025), hereinafter “Mac Namara.”
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12-16 and 18-20, Mac Namara teaches a dissolvable solid article which can include multiple layers of flexible, dissolvable, porous sheets, in which a coating composition including solid particles is present on at least one internal surface of at least one sheet in said solid articles (i.e., intermediate layer) (see abstract). In FIG. 7B, Mac Namara shows an exemplary multilayer dissolvable solid article in which a first coating composition 84 comprising a source of available oxygen (e.g. a percarbonate salt) (which reads on the first segment formed of a first composition having at least one cleaning composition) is applied between the sheets 83 and 85 and a second coating composition 86 comprising a bleach activator (e.g. TAED) (which reads on the second segment formed of a second composition, different from the first composition, having at least one cleaning composition) is applied between the sheets 85 and 87 (see [0190] and Fig. 7B). In Table 16, Example 1, Mac Namara also teaches a dissolvable solid article having a total number of 15 solid, porous sheet layers with open-celled foam (OCF) structures (see [0043]), wherein the porous sheets comprise polyvinyl alcohol (a water soluble polymer), a first coating applied between 5th and 6th sheets from bottom to top and the second coating composition applied between 10th and 11th sheets from bottom to top, wherein the first coating composition is anhydrous and comprises C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, 60.4 wt% (i.e., 20.40/(13.25+20.40+0.15/33.8 x 100) sodium percarbonate (which is water soluble) and wherein the second coating composition comprises C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, TAED bleach activator, perfume, chelant and brightener, among others (see Table 16 on page 27), wherein both the first and second coating agents are viscous liquids, which read on semi-solid or paste consistencies.
Mac Namara teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Mac Namara anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10
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.
Claims 4-5, 7-9, 11, 17 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mac Namara.
Regarding claim 4, Mac Namara, as discussed above, teaches a dissolvable solid article which can include multiple layers of flexible, dissolvable, porous sheets (see abstract). Mac Namara, however, fails to disclose one or both of the outer layers is configured as fabric.
Considering that Mac Namara teaches a dissolvable solid article which can include multiple layers of flexible, dissolvable, porous sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the flexible, porous sheets of Mac Namara to be configured as fabric in view of its structural elements, i.e., flexible, porous sheets.
Regarding claim 5, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mac Namara teaches that the solid sheet may be characterized by: (i) a Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to 100%; and (ii) an Overall Average Pore Size of from about 100 μm to about 2000 μm; and the Overall Average Pore Size defines the porosity of the OCF structure (see [0077]). Mac Namara also teaches that porosity is the ratio between void-space to the total space occupied by the OCF (see [0196]). Mac Namara, however, fails to specifically disclose the porosity of the first and outer layers being about 10% to about 90%.
Considering that Mac Namara teaches that the solid sheet has a Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to 100%; and an Overall Average Pore Size of from about 100 μm to about 2000 μm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the porous sheets to have a porosity within those recited.
Regarding claims 7-9, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mac Namara teaches that the flexible, porous dissolvable solid sheet may be formed by a wet pre-mixture that comprises a water soluble polymer and a first surfactant (see [0097]), and the water soluble polymers may include, other than the polyvinyl alcohol, polyalkylene oxides (which include polyethylene glycol), or polyethylene glycol monomethylacrylates, among others (see [0101]), having a weight average molecular weights ranging from about 5,000 to about 400,000 Daltons (see [0100]). The water-soluble polymer may be present in the flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 60% by total weight of the solid sheet (see [0099]). Mac Namara, however, fails to disclose the water-soluble polymer being polyethylene glycol as recited in claim 7, having a molecular weight of about 8,000 to 20,000 Da as recited in claim 8, and the solid sheet comprising from about 10% to about 50% by weight of the water soluble polymer as recited in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected polyethylene glycol as the water soluble polymer because this is one of the suitable water-soluble polymers disclosed in [0101]). With respect to its molecular weight and proportions, considering that Mac Namara teaches water soluble polymers, like polyethylene glycol, having a weight average molecular weight ranging from about 5,000 to about 400,000 Daltons and present in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 60% by total weight of the solid sheet, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mac Namara teaches that the coating composition comprises from 1% to 99% by weight of a non-aqueous liquid carrier, from 0.01% to 30% by weight of a thickening agent and from 1% to 99% by weight of solid particles (see [0136-0142]). Mac Namara, however, fails to disclose the coating composition having a complex modulus at ambient temperature of no less than 5,000 Pa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of each of the above ingredients such that the resulting composition would exhibit a complex modulus within those recited.
Regarding claim 17, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mac Namara teaches that the coating composition comprises solid particles which include an effervescent system (see [0141]), i.e., a base and an acid.
Regarding claims 21-22, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mac Namara teaches that the coating composition (i.e., first and second coating composition which reads on the intermediate layer comprising first and second cleaning compositions) may further comprise a colorant (see [0177]). Mac Namara, however, fails to specifically disclose the first and second coating compositions each comprising a color distinct from each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a colorant in each of the first and second coating compositions, the colorant being distinct in each of the compositions, because Mac Namara specifically desires a colorant in the coating compositions for the obvious reason of making a product that is appealing to consumers.
Regarding claims 23-25, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. Mac Namara, however, fails to disclose that the first and second colored compositions are arranged as a colored pattern that is visible through at least one of the outer layers as recited in claim 23 and has a transparency of about 5% to about 50% as recited in claim 25, wherein the colored pattern is an alternating pattern of linear and/or curved strips as recited in claim 24.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the colored coating compositions in the interior layers to be visible through at least one of the outer layers because the outer layers have a Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to 100%;and an Overall Average Pore Size of from about 100 μm to about 2000 μm, hence, would provide visibility through the interior colored coating compositions, and a transparency within those recited. With respect to the specific colored pattern, this is merely a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 26-30, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. Mac Namara, however, fails to disclose the specific brightness of each of the first and second coating compositions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the color of each of the first and second coating compositions to have a brightness within those recited because of aesthetic reasons.
Regarding claim 31, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mac Namara teaches that the term “sheet” refers to a non-fibrous structure having a three-dimensional shape, i.e., with a thickness, a length, and a width, while the length-to-thickness aspect ratio is at least about 10:1, and the length-to-width ratio is at least about 1:1 or at least about 1.5:1 (see [0030]), and the top, middle, and bottom regions are of equal thickness (see [0032]), hence, the ratio of the thickness of the top or bottom region to the middle region is 1:1.
Regarding claims 32-33, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed above. Mac Namara, however, fails to disclose an edge to face area ratio (EFAR) of less than 0.5 as recited in claim 32 or from about 0.01 to about 0.5 as recited in claim 33.
Considering that the edge of the first and second coatings is in the interior of the multilayer porous sheets, and “less than” includes zero as a lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974, the EFAR of the article of Mac Namara is zero, which is also close enough to about 0.01. 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 them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights