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 § 103
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 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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 109234089) A, published on November 6, 2018) ("He" hereunder) in view of EP (2 338 960) A1
He discloses an antibacterial cleansing effervescent tablet comprising an effervescent composition comprising an acid source such as citric acid or sulfamic acid or oxalic acid and mixtures thereof, etc., and an alkali source such as sodium carbonate (gas generator) and a bactericide such as sodium percarbonate. See translation, abstract and p. 3, lines 7-11. The reference teaches that the composition is designed to provide a neutral pH to avoid damages to user's hands. See Examples 1 and 2, p 7, Advantages no. 2. He discloses example formulations comprising pvp, which is a water soluble polymer and He further teaches that the tablet comprises sodium polyacrylate and acrylic acid-maleic acid copolymer which are further water soluble. Example 2 employes polyethylene glycol ~400-20000 MW. Step 1, diluting and preparing the polyvinyl pyrrolidone with water into 1:10 of water solution; Step 2 in the formation of said tablet shows mixture A prepared in the step 2) of the step 3) to obtain the mixture B, and non-ionic sterilizing agent uniformly, then set the tablet by preforming machine, specification of each tablet weight is 0.5 g ~ 20 g, Φ 5 mm ~ 40 mm, the thickness is 5 mm ~ 30 mm, the prepared fabric antibacterial cleaning effervescent tablet. Step 5: preparing fabric antibacterial cleaning effervescent tablet, to smooth regular appearance, uniform color, are the size, accurate weight, proper hardness, disintegration time is not more than 20 min. cleaning effervescent tablet prepared fabric antibacterial can be bottled, plastic package such as package form.
He does not teach the specific dimensions of said tablet as claimed such the indentation and pressing force as claimed.
With respect to the indentation, the thickness, height and weight of the solid tablet as claimed is suggested by He and one skilled in the art would expect a design choice of optimization to comprise a indentation height and this ornamentation is within the skill level of applicant.
The public use of an ornamental design which is directed toward generating consumer interest in the aesthetics of the design is not an experimental use. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
As stated in KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
"[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claimwould have been prima facie obvious] need not seek out preciseteachings directed to the specific subject matter of thechallenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferencesand creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the artwould employ."
With respect to the breaking force, EP ‘960 disclose a toilet cleaning tablet
Comprising 21 wt% sulfamic acid, 19 wt% citric acid, 25 wt% sodium bisulfate (an inorganic binder), 2 wt% sodium carbonate (a gas generator), 12 wt% sodium bicarbonate (another gas generator), 0.8 wt% sodium fatty alcohol sulfate, 3 wt% PEG,
optionally perfume, flow aid and disinfectant, the balance being sodium sulfate.
The composition is pressed into a tablet having a weight of 25 grams and a
diameter of 35 mm and dissolves in water within a couple of minutes [0030]). EP ‘960 teaches said table is pressed with a pressing force of 6 tons, therefor t is assumed that the tablet breaking force is >25 lbf.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to create a table for similar purposes as He with the guidance of EP ‘960 and obtain a pressing force known in the art to disintegrate or break with similar force the its intended purpose.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights