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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1-17 and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 16-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/736,657 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose all the limitations of claims 1-6, 17, 24-26 and because the limitations of claims 7-16 such as a third chamber, liquid and solid components and multiple compartments are obvious over the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/736,692 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose all the limitations of claims 1-6, 12, 15, 17 and 24-26 and because the limitations of claims 7-11, 13-14, 16 as a third chamber, solid components and multiple compartments are obvious over the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 16-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/736,640 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose all the limitations of claims 1-6, 11, 14, 17, 24-26 and because the limitations of claims 7-11, 12-13, 15 as a third chamber, liquid components and multiple compartments are obvious over the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16-19 of copending Application No. 18/736,668 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose all the limitations of claims 1-3, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 24-26 and because the limitations of claims 4-10, 13 and 16 such as a third chamber, dimensions, multiple compartments are obvious over the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/736,629 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose all the limitations of claims 1-6, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 24-26 and because the limitations of claims 7-10, 13 and 16 such as a third chamber, multiple compartments are obvious over the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 16-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/736,650 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose all the limitations of claims 1-6, 17, 24-26 and because the limitations of claims 7-16 such as a third chamber, liquid and solid components, multiple compartments are obvious over the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1375637.
As to claims 1 and 24:
EP 1375637 teaches a pouch as claimed.
The pouch comprises a water-soluble film with multiple chambers (with 2-5 chambers exemplified). See at least Figures 1a-g, 2 and the related description and the description at [0001], [0011-14],
The chambers are disclosed as connected by a linking portion of the water-soluble film (inner seal web and the third chamber) with the length that clearly envisages the claimed length (at least [0016]).
The chambers are disclosed as provided with detergent compositions.
AS to claims 2-3:
The length as claimed is clearly envisaged form the disclosure at [0016].
As to claims 4-6:
The dimensions as claimed are clearly envisaged form the disclosure at [0016-24].
As to claim 7:
The claimed at least one hole will be inherently present during the use of the disclosed pouch since the pouch is made of a water-soluble material.
As to claims 8-10 and 25-26:
Since EP 1375637 teaches pouches with multiple compartments/chambers with up to 5 compartments exemplified, the limitations of claims 8-10 are met by the disclosure of EP 1375637 since the disclosed compartments are readable on both claimed chambers and compartments.
As to claims 11-16:
EP 1375637 teaches the detergent compositions in both liquid and solid forms (at least [0002-3], [0032-36]).
As to claim 17:
The claimed PVA is disclosed at least at [0061-63].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims, cancelled claims 21-23 and filed new claims 24-26.
The amended and new claims have been examined and are addressed in the rejections above.
The teaching of EP 1375637 has been used to show that the pouches as claimed were known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights