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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rau et al. (US 2010/0034889), hereinafter “Rau.”
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-18, Rau teaches effervescent tablets/granules (see Title). In one example, Rau teaches an effervescent bath product which comprises 4.0 wt% maltodextrin (a highly branched cyclic dextrin), 20.0 wt% soda ash (which reads on binder and pH adjusting compound), 0.50 wt% silica (which reads on dissolution control agent), 0.50 wt% oleth 10 (a nonionic surfactant and a cleaning active), 20 wt% sodium bicarbonate (also a cleaning active), 1.00 wt% fragrance, 0.04 Blue #1 colorant, among others (see [0041], wherein the above formulation was compressed into single tablet or mini-tablet (see [0042]). Even though Rau does not teach a toilet cleanser use of his composition, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393.
Regarding claims 9, 14 and 16, Rau further teaches that the use of the effervescent tablet is not limited to the bath product as discussed above, but also toilet bowl cleaning agent, in tablet form, comprising other functional ingredients typically bleaches such as sodium percarbonate and surfactants like sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (see [0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Rau need not disclose the toilet bowl cleaning tablet being suspended on a clip made to hang in a toilet tank because this limitation is construed as an intended use only.
Hence, Rau anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colclasure et al. (US 2021/0171881), hereinafter “Colclasure.”
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-18, Colclasure taches an effervescent tablet for treating a toilet bowl comprising 2.5 wt% maltodextrin (a highly branched cyclic dextrin), 53.97 wt% sodium bicarbonate (which reads on binder and pH adjusting compound), 6.5 wt% sodium chloride (which reads on dissolution control agent), 2.5 wt% proteolytic enzyme (a cleaning active), and 3.53 wt% fragrance, among others (see [0043]-[0045] and Table 1). Colclasure also teaches that the effervescent tablet may include one or more surfactants like anionic, nonionic and cationic surfactants (see [0028]), and the anionic surfactant includes alkyl benzene sulfonate (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Colclasure need not disclose the toilet bowl cleaning tablet being suspended on a clip made to hang in a toilet tank because this limitation is construed as an intended use only.
Hence, Colclasure anticipates the claims.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Caparros Casco (US 2018/0105766).
Regarding claim 4, Rau teaches the features as discussed above. Rau, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of hydroxyethylcellulose.
Caparros Casco, an analogous art, teaches a detergent composition in the form of an effervescent tablet (see Title) for disinfecting hard surfaces like toilets (see [0059]), wherein the tablet comprises hydroxyethylcellulose as a thickening agent (see [0091]-[0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated hydroxyethylcellulose into the toilet tablet of Rau because this is a typical ingredient for similar tablets which provides thickening effect as taught by Caparros Casco.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2010/0140544), hereinafter “Smith.”
Regarding claim 7, Rau teaches the features as discussed above. Rau, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of monoalkanolamine.
Smith, an analogous art, teaches a composition useful in toilet bowl cleaner in tablet form (see [0075]) which comprises a builder like monoethanolamine, among others, which can increase the effectiveness of the surfactant (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated monoethanolamine into the toilet tablet of Rau because this will increase the effectiveness of the surfactant as taught by Smith.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Colclasure.
Regarding claim 13, Rau teaches the features as discussed above. Rau, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a cationic surfactant.
Colclasure, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Colclasure teaches that the effervescent tablet for treating a toilet bowl may include surfactants like cationic surfactants (see [0028]),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a cationic surfactant into the toilet tablet of Rau because this is one of the typical surfactants added in a similar tablet as taught by Colclasure.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Martin (US 2015/0197433).
Regarding claims 19-20, Rau teaches the features as discussed above. Rau, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a pH buffer like trisodium citrate.
Martin, an analogous art, teaches a solid toilet treatment in the form of a tablet (see [0014]) which comprises a pH buffer like citrate, i.e., trisodium citrate, to buffer the pH of the aqueous solution in the toilet holding tank (see [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pH buffer like trisodium citrate into the toilet tablet of Rau because this will buffer the pH of the aqueous solution in the toilet holding tank as taught by Martin.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colclasure as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-18 above, and further in view of Caparros Casco (US 2018/0105766).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Colclasure teaches the features as discussed above. Colclasure, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of hydroxyethylcellulose and bleach.
Caparros Casco, an analogous art, teaches a detergent composition in the form of an effervescent tablet (see Title) for disinfecting hard surfaces like toilets (see [0059]), wherein the tablet comprises hydroxyethylcellulose as a thickening agent (see [0091]-[0092]), and bleaching agents like sodium percarbonate (see [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated hydroxyethylcellulose and bleaching agent into the toilet tablet of Colclasure because these are typical ingredients for similar tablets which provide thickening and bleaching effects as taught by Caparros Casco.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colclasure as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-18 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2010/0140544), hereinafter “Smith.”
Regarding claim 7, Colclasure teaches the features as discussed above. Colclasure, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of monoalkanolamine.
Smith, an analogous art, teaches a composition useful in toilet bowl cleaner in tablet form (see [0075]) which comprises a builder like monoethanolamine, among others, which can increase the effectiveness of the surfactant (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated monoethanolamine into the toilet tablet of Colclasure because this will increase the effectiveness of the surfactant as taught by Smith.
Claims 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colclasure as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-18 above, and further in view of Martin (US 2015/0197433).
Regarding claims 11 and 19-20, Colclasure teaches the features as discussed above. Colclasure, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of a pH buffer like trisodium citrate.
Martin, an analogous art, teaches a solid toilet treatment in the form of a tablet (see [0014]) which comprises a pH buffer like citrate, i.e., trisodium citrate, to buffer the pH of the aqueous solution in the toilet holding tank (see [0011]) and additives like colorant (see [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pH buffer like trisodium citrate and colorant into the toilet tablet of Colclasure because this will buffer the pH of the aqueous solution in the toilet holding tank and provide aesthetic effects, respectively, as taught by Martin.
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