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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 17-24 are pending. Claims 1-16 have been canceled. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed October 8, 2024, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/005392 in view of Fernandez Prieto et al (US 2014/0338134) or Mort, III et al (US 7,022,660); and Borchers et al (US 2012/0058927) or Hazenkamp et al (US 2007/0072787).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘392 teaches cogranules comprising a core which comprises an enzyme surrounded by a first coating which comprises a bleach catalyst comprising manganese and a ligand which is di- or trimethyl azacyclononane or a derivative thereof, and which is surrounded by a second coating comprising at least 60% by weight of a water-soluble salt having a constant humidity at 20 degrees Celsius which is about 85%. See page 1, lines 20-35. The core may also comprise an enzyme stabilizer such as a reducing agent/antioxidant and/or a salt of a multivalent cation, etc. See page 2, lines 25-35. The first coating comprises the bleach catalyst in an amount of 2 to 15% by weight of the core. It may also comprise a binder in an amount of 1 to 20% by weight of the core. The second coating may be applied in an amount of at least 5% of the core, at least 10% or at most 70% of the core. To provide acceptable protection, the salt coating is preferably at least 1 micron thick, particularly at least 2 microns thick to below 100 microns thick. Suitable salts include sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, etc. See page 4, line 20 to page 5, line 35. Additionally, the granule may include an additional coating on the outside of the salt coating, in an amount of at least 0.5% by weight of the core and at most 20% of the core. The additional coating may comprise polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. Suitable bleach catalysts include those manganese containing bleach catalysts which are the same as recited by the instant claims. See pages 6 and 7. Note that, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly be motivated and have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate a first and third coating having a thickness which is within the range taught by ‘392 for the second coating. The composition may be in any convenient form such as a tablet having two or more layers, etc. See page 35, lines 1-20. The detergent composition may also contain one or more additional enzymes such as protease, lipase, amylase, etc. See page 25. The detergent enzyme(s) may be included in a detergent composition by adding separate additives containing one or more enzymes, or by adding a combined additive comprising all of these enzymes. A detergent additive of the invention, i.e., a separate additive or a combined additive, can be formulated, for example, as a granulate, liquid, slurry, etc. Preferred detergent additive formulations are granulates, in particular non-dusting granulates, liquids, in particular stabilized liquids, or slurries. See page 32.
‘392 does not teach a core which is non-enzymatic, the specific particle size of the bleach catalyst, or a tablet comprising two or more layers, the tablet containing a detergent enzyme granule and a non-enzymatic granule comprising a core, a first coating which contains a bleach catalyst and binder, a second coating comprising a water-soluble salt, a third coating, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Fernandez Prieto et al teach encapsulated benefit agents comprising a core and s shell that encapsulates said core. See Abstract. The core may comprise a material selected from the group consisting of a perfume, a hueing agent, a brightener, an enzyme, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 17.
Mort, III et al teach a process for preparing a detergent having a coating layer of a water-soluble material. See Abstract. The detergent particles comprise a particle core which is at least partially coated with a water-soluble coating material. The particle core may comprise an individual detergent ingredients such as an enzyme, bleaching agents, perfume, or mixtures thereof. See column 3, lines 50-69.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use, for example, a perfume or bleaches as the core in the particle as taught by ‘392, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fernandez Prieto et al or Mort, III et al teach the equivalence of enzymes to perfumes or bleaches as a core material in a similar coated granule and further, ‘392 teaches the use of enzyme as a core material.
Borchers et al teach co-granules containing a granule core and a sheath or coating layer surrounding the granule core. Suitable bleach catalysts include manganese containing bleach catalysts having a particle size of less than 50 microns. See para. 89.
Hazenkamp et al teach particulate compositions, especially granules, comprising finely particulate bleach catalysts. See Abstract. The finely particulate bleach catalysts preferably have an average particle size of less than 20 microns, preferably from 0.01 to 10 microns. See paras. 17 and 18. Suitable bleach catalysts include manganese containing bleach catalysts. See paras. 66-117. The granule may be coated. See para. 270.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the specific manganese containing bleach catalyst as recited by the instant claims in particulate form having a particle size, for example, of 10 or 15 microns, in the composition taught by ‘392, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Borchers et al or Hazenkamp et al teach the use of manganese containing bleach catalyst particles having a particle size, for example, of 10 microns, and further, ‘392 teaches the use of the specific manganese containing bleach catalyst as recited by the instant claims in granular compositions. Note that, the Examiner the broad teachings of ‘392 in view of Borchers et al or Hazenkamp et al would suggest granules having a first coating of a bleach catalyst and binder having the same thickness as recited by instant claim 27 because ‘392 in view of Borchers et al or Hazenkamp et al suggest granules having a first coating of a bleach catalyst and binder, wherein the bleach catalyst has the same particle size as recited by the instant claims which would suggest a first coating having the same thickness as recited by the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a tablet comprising two or more layers, the tablet containing a detergent enzyme granule and a non-enzymatic granule comprising a core, a first coating which contains a bleach catalyst and binder, a second coating comprising a water-soluble salt, a third coating, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘392 in view of Fernandez Prieto et al or Mort, III et al; and Borchers et al or Hazenkamp et al suggest a tablet comprising two or more layers, the tablet containing a detergent enzyme granule and a non-enzymatic granule comprising a core, a first coating which contains a bleach catalyst and binder, a second coating comprising a water-soluble salt, a third coating, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights