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 .
Priority
The examiner makes of record that Provisional Serial Numbers 63/657,586, 63/531,580 and 63/531,582 do not provide support for instant claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 24. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that the effective filing date of instant claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 is October 9, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7-9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In instant claim 5, the limitation “pH modifying” should be amended to recite “pH modifier” for grammatical purposes.
In instant claims 7 and 8, the term “and” before “sodium perborate” should be deleted for grammatical purposes.
In instant claims 9 and 11-12, the term “is” should be inserted before “selected from” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 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 recites the limitation "water dissolvable fragrance sheet" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the limitation “fragrance” should be amended to recite “bleach” to provide proper antecedent basis. Claims 2-14, 16, 18 and 24 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "builder agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the limitation “builder agent” should be amended to recite “builder” or “binding agent” to provide proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “1 to 10% by weight”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 1 requires the upper limit of the builder to be “5% by weight”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen et al, US 2021/0238517.
Janssen et al, US 2021/0238517, discloses a method for manufacturing a water-soluble laundry detergent sheet from a liquid composition including the following components: at least one soil release polymer, at least one surfactant, at least one water-soluble polymer, a washing booster, a perfume and at least one adjunct ingredient (see abstract and paragraph 4). It is further taught by Janssen et al that the soil release polymer is present in an amount of 0.5-10% by weight of the composition (see paragraph 32), that the surfactant is present in an amount of 25-70% by weight of the composition (see paragraph 33), that suitable surfactants include linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (see paragraph 36), that the water-soluble polymer includes polyvinyl alcohol, starch and polyethylene glycol (see paragraphs 47-54), that the liquid composition contains ethoxylated polyalkyleneimines (see paragraph 60), that the liquid composition contains adjunct ingredients in an amount of 0.1-5% by weight of the composition, such as sodium percarbonate bleaches, tetraacetyl ethylene diamine bleach activators, sodium carbonate and zeolite builders, solvents, such as glycerol, HEDP complexing agents, and fabric softeners (see paragraphs 70-71), and that the detergent sheet is made by moving the sheet surface in a rising direction across a heated conveyor that has a rotatable cylinder, contacting the surface with the liquid composition, allowing the excess liquid composition to drain off, and drying the sheet at 70-90 degrees Celsius, wherein the laundry sheet has a thickness of 0.1-2.5 mm (see paragraphs 78-85), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-2. Furthermore, with respect to claim 16, the examiner asserts that the subject matter would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the patentability of a product by process claim does not depend on its method of production and where the examiner has found a similar product, the burden rests with the applicant to prove that that product is patentably distinct. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145. "The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes the determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not the process that must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685,688 (CCPA 1972).
Although Janssen et al generally discloses a method for manufacturing a water-soluble laundry detergent sheet containing polyvinyl alcohol, 5-50% by weight of a surfactant, 0.1-5% by weight of a builder, 0.1-5% by weight of a binding agent, 0.1-5% by weight of a chelating agent, 1-60% by weight of a bleaching agent, 1-40% by weight of a bleach activator, and 1-70% by weight of a pH modifier, the reference does not require such water-soluble laundry detergent sheets containing these components with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a method for manufacturing a water-soluble laundry detergent sheet, as taught by Janssen et al, which contained polyvinyl alcohol, 5-50% by weight of a surfactant, 0.1-5% by weight of a builder, 0.1-5% by weight of a binding agent, 0.1-5% by weight of a chelating agent, 1-60% by weight of a bleaching agent, 1-40% by weight of a bleach activator, and 1-70% by weight of a pH modifier, because such water-soluble laundry detergent sheets fall within the scope of those taught by Janssen et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a water-soluble laundry detergent sheet containing polyvinyl alcohol, 5-50% by weight of a surfactant, 0.1-5% by weight of a builder, 0.1-5% by weight of a binding agent, 0.1-5% by weight of a chelating agent, 1-60% by weight of a bleaching agent, 1-40% by weight of a bleach activator, and 1-70% by weight of a pH modifier is expressly suggested by the Janssen et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
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 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19 and 21-23 of copending Application No. 18/911,225. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/911,225 claims a similar process for manufacturing a water dissolvable fragrance sheet comprising the steps of homogenizing in a high shear mixer at a temperature of 70-90 degrees Celsius an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol, 5-50% by weight of a surfactant, 0.1-5% by weight of a builder, 0.1-5% by weight of a binding agent, 0.1-5% by weight of a chelating agent, a fragrance, and adjunct materials, such as bleaching agents and fabric softeners, casting the homogenate onto a stainless steel roller drum, dehydrating at 70-120 degrees Celsius, and using heat steam to obtain a sheet having a thickness of 1.5-2.0 mm (see claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19 and 21-23 of copending Application No. 18/911,225), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19 and 21-23 of copending Application No. 18/911,225.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-23 of copending Application No. 18/911,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/911,204 claims a similar process for manufacturing a water dissolvable car cleaning sheet comprising the steps of homogenizing in a high shear mixer at a temperature of 70-90 degrees Celsius an aqueous solution of 3-25% by weight of polyvinyl alcohol, 5-50% by weight of a surfactant, 0.1-5% by weight of a builder, 0.1-5% by weight of a binding agent, 0.1-5% by weight of a chelating agent, a car surface treatment ingredient, and adjunct materials, such as bleaching agents and anti-beading compounds, casting the homogenate onto a stainless steel roller drum, dehydrating at 70-120 degrees Celsius, and using heat steam to obtain a sheet having a thickness of 1.5-2.0 mm (see claims 1-3 and 6-23 of copending Application No. 18/911,204), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 24 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-3 and 6-23 of copending Application No. 18/911,204.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MacNamara et al, US 2022/0112449, discloses a method for making multilayer dissolvable solid sheets (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights