Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 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
2 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 1-20 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 1 indefinites because the claim recites the limitation “a ratio of the at least one biodegradable carboxylic acid to the at least one anionic surfactant of about 1:1 or greater” It is unclear what is mean by greater?. The upper limit of ratio is not defined. Clarification or correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the following limitation “wherein the compatibilizing agent”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite “compatibilizing agent”. Correction is required.
Claims 2-5 and 8-20 are dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 8-20 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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.
4 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 1-4, 8-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Cowan et al. (US 20030080150 A1).
Cowan et al. (US’ 150 A1) teaches a dispenser in the form of a sachet made of a water-soluble plastics material containing a personal care composition comprising Citric acid (biodegradable carboxylic acid) in the amount of 38.8% by wt., and sodium lauryl sulphate (anionic surfactant) in the amount of 11.5% by wt., wherein the weight ratio of the Citric acid to anionic surfactant of about 3.37:1, wherein the composition is a powder within the sachet as claimed in claims 1-4 and 8-10 (see page 3, paragraph, 0026, 0029, claims 1 and 28). Cowan et al. (US’ 150 A1) teaches same composition which inherently should have same property of stability as claimed in claims 1 and 16, wherein the sachet comprises a poly-vinyl alcohol film as claimed in claim 12 (see claim 4), wherein the composition also comprises non-ionic surfactants and cationic surfactants as claimed in claim 13 (see page 2, paragraph, 0019) and organic acids include lactic acid and maleic acid as claimed in claim 13 (see page 2, paragraph, 0020), wherein the composition also comprises sodium carbonate (filler) as claimed in claim 15 (see claim 21) and wherein the composition comprises a sufficient amount of water (diluent) as claimed in claim 17 (see claim 1). Cowan et al. (US’ 150 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims . Hence, Cowan et al. (US’ 150 A1) anticipates the claims.
5 Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Zabarylo; Steven (US 6541439 B1).
Zabarylo; Steven (US’ 439 B1) teaches a cleaning system comprises a water soluble container, a powdered cleaning composition disposed in the water soluble container wherein the powdered cleaning composition comprising Citric acid in the amount of 23.15% by wt., and 16.50 % by wt., of sodium lauryl sulfate (NaLAS) (anionic surfactant) in the ratio of 1.4:1 as claimed in claims 1-4 and 8-10 (see claim 1 and col. 9, Example 1), wherein the container is formed from a polyvinyl alcohol as claimed in claim 12 (see claim 3), wherein the composition also comprises nonionic surfactants as claimed in claim 13 (see claim 5), and wherein the composition exhibit a pH in acidic range as claimed in claim 18 (see col. 7, lines 6-7). Zabarylo; Steven (US’ 439 B1) teaches same composition which inherently should have same property of stability as claimed in claims 1, 16 and 19-20. Zabarylo; Steven (US’ 439 B1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Zabarylo; Steven (US’ 439 B1) anticipates the claims.
6 Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Grande et al. (US 20120297551 A1).
Grande et al. (US’ 551 A1) teaches a water-soluble unit-dose pouch comprising a powder composition comprising Citric acid (Carboxylic acid) in the amount of 0.03% by wt., and Linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (anionic surfactant) in the amount of 0.7% by wt., wherein the ratio of the carboxylic acid to the anionic surfactant is 1.23 as claimed in claims 1-4, 8-10 and 11 (see page 6, paragraph, 0096), wherein the powder composition also comprises carboxylic acid coated with a salt of a carboxylic acid include sodium citrate (compatibilizing agent) as claimed in claims 5-7 (see page 6, paragraph, 0096), wherein the pouch material comprises polyvinyl alcohols as claimed in claim 12 (see page 2,paragraph, 0022), wherein the powder composition also comprises sodium carbonate (filler) as claimed in claims 14-15 (see page 3, paragraph, 0057). Grande et al. (US’ 551 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Grande et al. (US’ 551 A1) anticipates the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights