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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19, 21, and 23 in the reply filed on 7/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 22 is written to depend from the process claim and therefore contains all the limitations of the process claim. This is not found persuasive because claim 22 is a product-by-process claim, per MPEP 2113 I, and the product of claim 22 is not limited to the manipulations steps recited in claim 1. The sheet could be made via extrusion or casting it into a static mold.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “polyvinyl alcohol” needs (PVA) added to indicate the abbreviation, e.g. “polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)”.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 9-10: “to obtain a water dissolvable fragrance sheet 1.5-2.0 mm thick” should be amended to say (for proper antecedent basis) ““to obtain the water dissolvable fragrance sheet with a thickness of 1.5-2.0 mm”. This does not rise to the level of indefiniteness but needs correction.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of line 13 “PVA” needs to say “the PVA”. This does not rise to the level of indefiniteness but needs correction for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “additional” should be “addition”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “BioKeen” should be “BioKleen”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the species listed are randomly capitalized, and none of them are proper nouns, please amend the capitalizations to lower case.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the species listed are randomly capitalized, and none of them are proper nouns, please amend the capitalizations to lower case.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the species listed are randomly capitalized, and none of them are proper nouns, please amend the capitalizations to lower case.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the capital D in “Disodium” should not be capitalized.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the species listed are randomly capitalized, and none of them are proper nouns, please amend the capitalizations to lower case.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “EpsonSalt” needs to be “Epsom salt”. Epsom is spelled with a “m” not a “n”, and salt should not be capitalized.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the species listed are randomly capitalized, and not all of them are proper nouns, please amend the capitalizations to lower case, with the exception of “Epsom salt”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Perfume Micro Capsules” should be “perfume micro capsules”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: there needs to be a space before MGDA.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: “a bleaching agent” in lines 1-2 should be “the bleaching agent”. This does not rise to the level of indefiniteness, but needs correction for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 4, 7, 9, or 10 be found allowable, they will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As discussed in the 112b rejection below, claims 4, 7, 9, and 10 claim adding the same species to the aqueous solution.
Applicant is advised that should claims 6 or 10 be found allowable, they will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As discussed in the 112b rejection below, claims 6 and 10 claim adding the same species to the aqueous solution.
Applicant is advised that should claims 8 or 15 be found allowable, they will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As discussed in the 112b rejection below, claims 8 and 15 claim adding the same species to the aqueous solution.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-19, 21, and 23 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. Dependent claims not rejected separately are rejected due to their dependency.
The term “mirror finish” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mirror finish” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite since the connection between the roller drum and the steam heat is unclear. As disclosed in the specification and drawings the roller drum is steam heated. However, in claim 1 the steam heat appears to be a separate process step; clarification is required.
Claim 1 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear what is part of the optional step at the end of claim 1. As written “all percentages by weight, all percentages total 100%” is within the optional clause. For examination purposes this phrase will be read outside of the optional clause.
Claim 2 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the use of trademarks and trade names Ozium, Lysol, Damprid, Lemon (assuming this is a brand and not referring to the fruit), and BioKeen (which is assumed to be BioKleen). The issue is what is being claimed. As written these are the name of product lines, and not specific products. So which product from those lines are used. The trade names and trademarks are vague and indefinite since it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim is supposed to be since it us unknown what is actually being used chemically. See MPEP 2173.05(u).
Claim 2 is seen as vague and indefinite due “Lemon”. It is unclear whether this is a brand name or if this is referring to the fruit. Since it is within a list of brand name and it capitalized it would seem to also be a brand name, however the specification does not help in the understanding of “Lemon”.
Claim 2 is seen as vague and indefinite due the use of Damprid. It is unclear how the Applicant is trying to use Damprid products, since Damprid does not produce a product that is for laundry cleaning purposes. Is the Applicant saying one should open a Damprid desiccant bag and add that to the wash liquid?
Claim 2 is seen as vague and indefinite due the “combination thereof” for the two lists. There are incompatible chemicals which would cause harm to those combining those chemicals in both lists. One example is combining hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. This creates peracetic acid which is harmful, and should not be combined for laundry purposes.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 is seen as vague and indefinite due the “combination thereof” for the list. There are incompatible chemicals which would cause harm to those combining those chemicals. One example is combining hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. This creates peracetic acid which is harmful, and should not be combined for laundry purposes.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "essential oils". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Are the essential oils of claim 7 different from the botanical oils or the essential oil of claim 1? Is one adding more essential oils? Since the metes and bounds of claim 7 are not discernable claim 7 is therefore vague and indefinite.
Claim 8 is seen as vague and indefinite since the species names of the acronyms are not introduced anywhere in the disclosure, thus the exact species is not known making the metes and bounds of the claim unknown. For examination purposes MGDA is methylglycinediacetic acid, DPTA is diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, and EDTA is ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Claim 8 needs to be amended to show the full species name.
Claim 8 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the duplicate use of disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate dihydride and Na2EDTA. From the Examiner understanding disodium EDTA only exists as a dihydride, therefore claim 8 is listing the same chemical twice.
Claim 9 is seen as vague and indefinite due the “combination thereof” for the list. There are incompatible chemicals which would cause harm to those combining those chemicals in both lists. Two examples being hypochlorite combines with either hydrogen peroxide or vinegar. This creates reaction products which are harmful (e.g. chlorine gas), and should not be combined for laundry purposes.
Claim 10 is seen as vague and indefinite due the “combination thereof” for the list. There are incompatible chemicals which would cause harm to those combining those chemicals in the list. One example is combining hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. This creates peracetic acid which is harmful, and should not be combined for laundry purposes.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a surfactant" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same surfactant as claimed in claim 1, or a different surfactant. For examination purposes it will be treated as the surfactant of claim 1.
Claims 4, 7, 9, and 10 are seen as vague and indefinite since they can all be limited to claim the exact same thing. As written claims 4, 7, 9, and 10 can be read as adding sodium bicarbonate (AKA baking soda) as the lone species to the aqueous solution. Therefore, what is the Applicant trying to gain protection for when four claims are claiming adding the same thing to the aqueous solution?
Claims 4, 9, and 10 are seen as vague and indefinite since they can all be limited to claim the exact same thing. As written claims 4, 9, and 10 can be read as adding hydrogen peroxide as the lone species to the aqueous solution. Therefore, what is the Applicant trying to gain protection for when three claims are claiming adding the same thing to the aqueous solution?
Claims 4, 9, and 10 are seen as vague and indefinite since they can all be limited to claim the exact same thing. As written claims 4, 9, and 10 can be read as adding vinegar as the lone species to the aqueous solution. Therefore, what is the Applicant trying to gain protection for when three claims are claiming adding the same thing to the aqueous solution?
Claims 6 and 10 are seen as vague and indefinite since they can all be limited to claim the exact same thing. As written claims 6 and 10 can be written, adding bentonite clay as the lone species to the aqueous solution. Therefore, what is the Applicant trying to gain protection for when two claims are claiming adding the same thing to the aqueous solution?
Claims 8 and 15 are seen as vague and indefinite since they can all be limited to claim the exact same thing. As claims 8 and 15 can be written as adding EDTA, MGDA, or DTPA as the lone species to the aqueous solution. Therefore what is the Applicant trying to gain protection for when two claims are claiming adding the same thing to the aqueous solution?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 is directed to a process for making a laundry sheet. Claim 2 is a process of using the laundry sheet made by the method of claim 1. Therefore claim 2 does not further limit claim 1, since nothing in claim 2 further limits any limitation in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: DPTA, MGDA, and EDTA are used in the specification without also providing their full chemical name (see 112b of claim 8 above).
The use of the terms Ozium, Lysol, Damprid, Lemon (assuming this is a brand and not referring to the fruit), and BioKeen (which is assumed to be BioKleen), which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the random capitalization of species needs corrected as discussed in the above objections. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-19, 21, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 18, and 24 of copending Application No. 18/911198 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter overlaps in such a manner as to be obvious variants of each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art related to laundry sheets, their formation, and composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights