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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski (US 2021/0054316).
Regarding claims 1-9, 12, 17-18 and 20, Piorkowski teaches a unit dose pack which includes a water soluble film and a wash composition encapsulated within the film, wherein the wash composition includes a glycol ether in an amount of from about 2 to about 15 weight percent, glycerin in an amount of from about 15 to about 26 weight percent, and polyethylene glycol in an amount of from about 0 to about 12 weight percent, all based on a total weight of the wash composition (see [0005]) and [0013]), and wherein the wash composition is liquid (see [0016]). The wash composition also includes an anionic surfactant in an amount of from about 20 to about 35 weight percent and a nonionic ethoxylated surfactant in an amount of from about 15 to about 30 weight percent (see [0007]). The polyethylene glycol may have a weight average molecular weight of from about 300 to about 600 daltons in an exemplary embodiment, but in alternate embodiments the polyethylene glycol has a weight average molecular weight of from about 300 to about 500, or from about 350 to about 450, or about 400 daltons (see [0023]). The wash composition includes one or more solvents in an exemplary embodiment, for example, water may be present in the wash composition at a concentration of from about 7 to about 25 weight percent based on the total weight of the wash composition (see [0024]). Other non-aqueous solvents may be included in the wash composition which includes sorbitol as one of the selections (see [0025]). It is also noted that none of the other non-aqueous solvents listed in [0025] includes propylene glycol. Piorkowski, however, fails to specifically disclose a detergent surfactant system in an amount of about 10 to about 60 wt%; alditol like sorbitol in an amount of about 3 to about 20 wt%; polyethylene glycol in an amount of about 3 to about 35 wt%; glycerol or glycerin in an amount of about 0 to about 20 wt%; sorbitol:polyethylene glycol weight ratio of about 10:90 to about 90:10 as recited in independent claims 1 and 17; sorbitol in an amount of about 5 to about 15 wt% as recited in claim 5; polyethylene glycol in an amount of about 5 to about 15 wt% as recited in claim 6; wherein the glycerol:combined amount of sorbitol and polyethylene glycol weight ratio is about 60:60 to about 40:60 as recited in claim 8; and wherein the surfactant system is present in an amount of about 20 to about 50 wt% based on the total weight of the liquid detergent composition as recited in claim 12.
Considering that Piorkowski teaches anionic surfactant in an amount of from about 20 to about 35 weight percent, a nonionic ethoxylated surfactant in an amount of from about 15 to about 30 weight percent, polyethylene glycol in an amount of from about 0 to about 12 weight percent, and glycerin in an amount of from about 15 to about 26 weight percent, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 35-60 wt% or 35-50 wt% total surfactant, 3-12 wt% or 5-12 wt% polyethylene glycol ,and 15-20 wt% or 25-16 wt% glycerin or glycerol) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the specific amount of the sorbitol, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the amount of the sorbitol be non-critical, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of the sorbitol through routine experimentation for best results. Hence, in view of the above, the sorbitol:polyethylene glycol, and glycerol:combined weight of sorbitol and polyethylene glycol will have weight ratios which also overlaps those recited.
Regarding claim 10, Piorkowski further teaches that the nonionic surfactant includes ethoxylation and/or propoxylation products of linear or branched alcohols having 12 to 18 C atoms in the alkyl moiety and 3-20 alkyl ether groups (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Piorkowski further teaches that the anionic surfactant includes alcohol ethoxysulfates or linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (see [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Piorkowski further teaches that the wash composition may optionally include other components like enzymes, peroxy compounds, bleach activators, anti-redeposition agents, optical brighteners, foam inhibitors, or bittering agents (see [0031]).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Piorkowski further teaches some products are free of colorants and perfumes (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Piorkowski further teaches that the film typically includes polyvinyl alcohol (see [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, Piorkowski further teaches that the unit dose pack is sized to provide a desired quantity of wash composition for one load of laundry or one batch of dishes in a dishwasher (see [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights