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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/20/2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 should read “wherein the second component comprises an inactive component, is at least partially water-soluble…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should read “releases at least some of the first component having a particle size of…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 5 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).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 will be interpreted as at least one particle of the second component comprises between 0-70 wt% of the total particulate material composition.
Claim 7 will be interpreted as at least one particle of the first component comprises about 30 wt% of the total particulate material composition.
Claim 8 will be interpreted as at least one particle of the second component comprises 60 wt% of the total particulate material composition.
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 3-4, and 13 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.
With regards to claim 3, the phrase “has a particle size from about 0.01 μm to about 50 μm” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the particle size refers to the dry particle size or particle size after contact with water. If the particle size refers to the dry particle size as taught in independent claim 1, then the range of the instant claim is broader than dry particle size range recited in the independent claim and would receive a 112(d) rejection. If the particle size refers to the particle size after contact with water, it should be clarified.
With regards to claim 4, the phrase "preferably" in lines 2 and 4 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). For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 4 will be interpreted as the particulate composition does not comprise any second components that are at least partially water-insoluble with an average dry particle size of greater than about 50 μm.
With regards to claim 13, the phrase “solubility in water of about 0 g/mL” renders the claim indefinite. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of “about 0”. It is unclear whether the second component is required to have some solubility in water or be completely insoluble in water at the given temperatures. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 13 will be interpreted as the second component exhibiting a solubility in water of 0-10 g/mL at 25 C.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeNome et. al (US20180216052A1) hereinafter DeNome.
DeNome teaches a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble fibrous structure and a plurality of particles distributed throughout the structure (see claim 1). With regards to claim 1, DeNome teaches the exemplary product chasses C1-C10 comprising of aqueous fibrous elements and a particle composition, which further comprises linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (LAS) surfactant, alkylethoxysulfate (AES) surfactant, C12-14 sulfate surfactant, and sodium carbonate (water-soluble active first components) and zeolite A (a builder) and silica (water-insoluble inactive second components) among others (see Tables 1-3). The water-insoluble particles are taught to have a suspension mean particle size of less than 20 μm (see [0063]). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the second component’s dry particle size to be between 0.1-20 μm if the suspension mean particle size is less than 20 μm. When suspended in solution, the particle will expand and have a larger size than when dry.
With regards to claim 2, the non-active component is defined in the instant Specification as the component in the formulation which does not constitute the primary active component responsible for producing the intended functional effect (see Instant Specification [0065]). The instant Specification also notes the builders as not being the primary active agents (see [0125]). In the above product chasses, the primary active components are the LAS, AES, and C12-14 sulfate surfactants which are intended to clean. Hence, the water-insoluble zeolite A builder can be characterized as a non-active component.
With regards to claim 3, DeNome teaches the release of the active agents when the fibrous element is exposed to the conditions of intended use which include adding the unit dose to a washing machine for a wash cycle between 5-20 minutes at 30° C or less (see [0060]; see also [0202]). Although the active component particle size is not explicitly taught, DeNome teaches taught to have a suspension mean particle size of less than 20 μm (see [0063]). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect overlap between the particle size of the active agents taught by DeNome and the ranges recited in the instant claim.
With regards to claims 4-5, DeNome teaches the water-insoluble particles are taught to have a suspension mean particle size of less than 20 μm (see [0063]). It would be reasonable to expect the unit dose article to not comprise any second components with an average particle size of greater than 50 μm.
With regards to claim 6, in P3 zeolite A (second component) comprises 24.4 mass% of the particle composition (see Table 2).
With regards to claim 7, in exemplary particle composition P9 the AES surfactant (first component) comprises 27.4 mass%, which is about 30 mass% (see Table 2). Composition P7 also comprises of 30.7 mass% total surfactant (4.4 mass% LAS + 26.4 mass% AES). Therefore, the general teachings of DeNome suggest about 30 mass% of the first component based on the total particulate composition.
With regards to claim 8, in exemplary particle composition P1 the zeolite (second component) comprises 54.2 mass%, which is about 60 mass% (see Table 2). Particle composition P4 comprises 6.7 mass% of silica (see Table 2). Therefore, the general teachings of DeNome suggest about 60 mass% of the second component based on the total particulate composition.
With regards to claim 9, DeNome teaches clusters of particles can be distributed in pockets distributed in the layers of the particle fibers (see [0199]).
With regards to claim 10, DeNome teaches the use of zeolite A builder but does not disclose its dry particle size (see Table 3). However, DeNome generally teaches the water-insoluble particles to have a suspension mean particle size of less than 20 μm (see [0063]). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the dry particle size of the zeolite to overlap with the range recited in the instant claim is the suspension mean particle size in water is less than 20 μm.
With regards to claim 11, the swelling index of the zeolite and silica second components are not explicitly stated. However, zeolite and silica particles are also noted in the instant Specification in exemplary Compositions 1-4 (see instant Specification Table 1). Because the structure of the prior art is identical, the swelling index of zeolite and silica are inherent and necessarily less than 2. “Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
With regards to claim 12, DeNome teaches the insoluble second component can have a suspension mean particle size of less than 50 μm or 20 μm (see [0019]).
With regards to claim 13, the solubility of zeolite and silica are not explicitly taught. However, the structure of the prior art is identical to the instant Specification, the solubility of zeolite and silica are inherent and necessarily fall within the range of 0-10 g/mL. “Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
With regards to claim 14, DeNome teaches the use of silica as a non-active water-insoluble second component in the particulate composition (see Table 2). Silica is known in the art to exist in crystalline forms.
With regards to claim 15, the use of zeolites as a builder are specifically taught (see [0130]). The use of modified silica is taught as a primary filler (see [0179]).
With regards to claims 16 and 19, the use of enzymes, bleaching systems, hueing agents, perfume microcapsules as active agents in the particle are taught (see claim 7). The composition necessarily comprises two surfactants (see claim 1).
With regards to claims 17-18, DeNome teaches the use of LAS as the main surfactant such that it comprises 50% or more of the total surfactant in the unit dose article and AES as the second surfactant (see [0026]). The ratio between LAS:AES is necessarily greater than 1 if LAS comprises greater than 50% of the composition.
With regards to claim 20, the unit dose article may comprise 10-100% printed area on the surface of the article (see [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights