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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" 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).
The term “maximum dimension” in claims 1, 4, 5, 14, 16, 18-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum dimension” 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. A dimension is a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, diameter, or height, it is unclear which measurable extent is being referred to. Thus, further delineation is needed.
Claims 2, 3, 6-13, 15, and 17 are rejected for their incorporation of the above through their dependency of claim 1.
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(s) 1-5 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (US 2019/0248546 A1), and further in view of Friedrich et al. (US 2019/0211289 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Inagawa discloses the claimed invention including packaged laundry product comprising a flexible package (60) and a plurality of perfume-containing particles contained in the flexible package (Para. 165, powder detergent is made up of fragranced particles),
wherein Inagawa states that the particles may be any product (Para. 165) except for expressly stating a carrier. However, Friedrich teaches each of the perfume-containing particles comprises a carrier (10, 20); and a perfume (50) (Fig. 1, 5, Para. 41, carrier with perfume for each particle); wherein each of said particles has a mass between 1 mg to 1 g (Para. 43, any size or volume); and wherein each of said particles has a maximum dimension of less than 10 mm (Para. 43, any size or volume)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include the claimed sized perfume containing particles of Friedrich, size Inagawa states that the flexible package may contain any desired detergent (para. 165), and such a modification allows for a single dose to be prefilled into the carrier preventing the user from using too much perfume than is required for its intended task, and further it has been held that the claimed size and dimension would have been obvious such that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
wherein the flexible package is made of a layered film material, and comprises a top end, an opposing bottom end (63b), and two peripheral walls (63a) extending between the top end and the bottom end (Figs. 6a-6c., Para. 78, made up of layers),
characterized in that the bottom end of the flexible package comprises one or more holes (62) (Fig. 6c, bottom end with hole).
characterized in that at least one or more parts of the flexible package that can be transparent or translucent (Para. 88-89, PET may be made transparent) except for expressly stating so. However, Friedrich discloses using a flexible package with parts that are transparent or translucent (Para. 32, transparent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a transparent/translucent package since Friedrich states in para. 32 that such a modification is useful for showing the particles inside the package, for example to indicate the number or volume remaining in the package.
Re: Claim 2, Inagawa as modified by Friedrich discloses the claimed invention including the at least one or more parts of the walls of the flexible package is transparent (Friedrich: Para. 32, transparent).
Re: Claim 3, Inagawa as modified by Friedrich discloses the claimed invention including the transparent part is present in the front wall of the flexible package and is a portion of the total area of the front wall of the flexible package (Friedrich: Para. 32, partially covers the package) except for expressly stating in the range of 5% to 95% of the total area of the front wall of the flexible package. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a transparent region in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re: Claims 4-5, Inagawa discloses the claimed invention including except for expressly stating that each of the one or more holes has a maximum dimension of less than 1 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a maximum dimension of less than 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re: Claim 9, , Inagawa discloses the claimed invention including the flexible package has a laminated film structure comprising multiple layers selected from the group consisting of a nylon layer, a polyethylene layer such as linear low-density polyethylene (L-LDPE) or low-density polyethylene (LDPE), a polyethylene terephthalate layer, a layer made of plastic on which an aluminum vapor deposition layer is formed, an aluminum layer, and combinations thereof (Para. 88, 89, LLDPE, aluminum disposed plastic layer, an aluminum layer).
Regarding claim 10-11, Inagawa in view of Friedrich is silent regarding the dimension of the flexible package. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inagawa in view of Friedrich by causing a height ranging from 20 cm to 60 cm; and (2) a width ranging from 15 cm to 40 cm. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular dimensions (see Specification wherein the claimed dimensions are “preferable”) and it appears that the device of Inagawa in view of Friedrich would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of dimensions.
Re: Claim 12, Inagawa as modified by Friedrich discloses the claimed invention including each of said particle comprises:
(a) from 40% to 90% by weight of water-soluble carrier, wherein the carrier comprises materials selected from polyethylene glycol, polysaccharide, inorganic salts, and any combinations thereof (Friedrich: Para. 126, polysaccharide at least 60 percent),
(b) from 2% to 12% by weight of free perfume (Friedrich: Para. 134, perfume .1 to 10 percent),
(c) from 2% to 20% by weight of friable perfume microcapsule, wherein said friable perfume microcapsule comprises encapsulated perfume (Friedrich: Para. 135, 148, perfume in a microcapsule about 20 percent), and
(d) one or more detersive actives selected from the group consisting of surfactants, builders, bleach actives, enzymes, polymers, chelants, softeners, suds suppressors, suds boosters, brighteners, dye transfer inhibitors, and any combinations thereof (Friedrich: Para. 160, blech or brighteners etc.) except for its percentage. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include from 0% to 20% of a detersive active, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re: Claim 13, Inagawa as modified by Friedrich discloses the claimed invention each of said particle is characterized by a mass except for specifying the mass being from 5 mg to 300 mg. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a mass being from 5 mg to 300 mg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re: Claim 14, Inagawa as modified by Friedrich discloses the claimed invention including each of said particle is characterized by a maximum dimension except for each of said particle is characterized by a maximum dimension ranging from 4 mm to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a maximum dimension ranging from 4 mm to 8 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re: Claim 15, Inagawa as modified by Friedrich discloses the claimed invention including each of said particle is characterized by a substantially flat base (20) and a height (10) measured orthogonal to said base and together said particles have a distribution of heights (Friedrich: Depicted in Fig. 5), except for said distribution of heights has a mean height between about 1 mm and about 5 mm and a height standard deviation less than about 0.3. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inagawa in view of Friedrich by causing a mean height between about 1 mm and about 5 mm and a height standard deviation less than about 0.3. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any dimension (see Specification wherein the claimed invention “may have” said dimension) and it appears that the device of Inagawa in view of Friedrich would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of mean height.
Re: Claim 16, the rejections from claims 13-14 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 17, the rejections from claims 13 and 15 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 18, the rejections from claims 14 and 15 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 19, the rejections from claims 13-15 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Re: Claim 20, the rejection from claims 13-15 above cover the limitations recited in this claim.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (US 2019/0248546 A1) and Friedrich et al. (US 2019/0211289 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (US 2007/0175920 A1).
Re: Claim 6, Inagawa discloses the claimed invention including a spout located near the top end except for said spout being solid/rigid. However, Takada teaches a flexible package further comprises a solid spout (7) located at or near the top end of the flexible package (Depicted in Figs. 5-7, Para. 38, metal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a rigid spout as taught by Takada, since Takada states in para. 43 that such a modification prevents the front and back flexible walls from mutually contacting in the region where spout is located and surrounding regions thereof, and to maintain the pour spout in an always opened condition when dispensing.
Regarding claim 7-8, Inagawa in view of Takada is silent regarding the dimension of the flexible package and spout. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inagawa in view of Takada by causing the flexible package to have a diameter ranging from 21 mm to 28 mm, and the rigid spout is further characterized by a height ranging from 30 mm to 40 mm. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular dimension (see Specification wherein the claimed dimensions are “preferably” as recited) and it appears that the device of Inagawa in view of Friedrich would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of dimensions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on PTO-892 provide additional examples of flexible package dispensers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights