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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed March 6, 2025, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 1, line 9, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”.
With respect to claim 2, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”.
With respect to claim 4, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”.
With respect to claim 7, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”.
With respect to claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”.
With respect to claim 14, line 4, before “comprising” it is suggested that Applicant insert “further”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
(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 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.
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.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunder et al (US 2011/0097369).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Sunder et al teach laundry-detergent and cleaning-product additives in particle form, comprising a water-soluble or water-dispersible carrier and active ingredient microcapsules. These particles allow a user to obtain particular advantages with respect to fragrancing and care of the articles treated in conventional laundering and cleaning operations, such as, in particular, in automatic laundering of fabrics. See Abstract. Particles according to the invention can be used in the main wash cycle of an automatic washing or cleaning method, particularly as an extra additive added in addition to a normal detergent or cleaning agent or as an integral component of a detergent or cleaning agent. The particles may be added, for example, together with the detergent or cleaning agent to the washing drum or to the rinse compartment of a washing machine. Active ingredients contained in the microcapsules can contribute toward achieving the added value, which goes beyond the simple cleaning of textiles. According to the invention, this added value may be manifested in an improved textile fragrancing, an improved textile care and/or even in achieving cosmetic skin-care effects, depending on the choice of active ingredients implemented.
Particles according to the invention also comprise a water-soluble or water-dispersible carrier as a component in addition to the microcapsules. Water-soluble or water-dispersible carriers comprising material(s) chosen from inorganic alkali metal salts, organic alkali metal salts, inorganic alkaline earth metal salts, organic alkaline earth metal salts, organic acids, carbohydrates, silicates, urea or mixtures thereof is a preferred embodiment of the invention. Such carrier materials are not only inexpensive, but usually also dissolve very well in water. Furthermore, these materials are odor-neutral. Suitable materials include inorganic alkali metal salts such as sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium sulfate, sodium carbonate, potassium sulfate, potassium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate or mixtures thereof, organic alkali metal salts such as sodium acetate, potassium acetate, sodium citrate, sodium tartrate or potassium sodium tartrate, inorganic alkaline earth metal salts such as calcium chloride, magnesium sulfate or magnesium chloride, organic alkaline earth metal salts such as calcium lactate, carbohydrates, organic acids, such as citric acid or tartaric acid, silicates such as water glass, sodium silicate or potassium silicate, urea and mixtures thereof. Especially preferred water-soluble or water-dispersible carriers however, comprise carbohydrates. Thus, if the water-soluble or water-dispersible carriers include a carbohydrate chosen from dextrose, fructose, galactose, isoglucose, glucose, sucrose, raffinose or mixtures thereof, this is also a preferred embodiment of the invention. It is particularly advantageous if the water-soluble or water-dispersible carrier used is based on at least about 80 wt. % carbohydrates, preferably at least about 90 wt. %, in particular at least about 95 wt. %, or even completely carbohydrates. See paras. 9-12. The water-soluble or water-dispersible carrier can also contain mixtures of the aforementioned materials (e.g., mixtures of salts such as sodium citrate) and carbohydrates. See para. 14. Most preferred as active ingredients include fragrances, particularly in combination with textile-care ingredients. See para. 37. Textile-care ingredients may include detergents or cleaning agents. See para. 68. The perfumes may be contained within microcapsules. See para. 40. Regardless of whether the microcapsules contain fragrances and/or perfume oil, the particle can also contain fragrances and/or perfume oil outside of the microcapsules. Accordingly, a preferred embodiment of the invention relates to a particle containing perfume oil outside of the microcapsules, wherein the composition of the perfume oil outside of the microcapsules preferably differs from the perfume oil optionally contained inside the microcapsules. See paras. 60-62. Particles containing an amount of perfume from 0.1 to 30 wt %, preferably 0.3 to 15 wt% and in particular 0.5 to 7 wt%, where wt% is based on the total particle, represent a preferred embodiment of the invention. See para. 65.
Active ingredients in the microcapsules can also include textile-care ingredients. In this way, it is possible to provide detergents or cleaning agents and/or additives with textile-care properties. Further, in the cleaning of textiles, not only are the textiles washed cleanly, but they are also cared for in such a way that, for example, a pleasantly soft feel is imparted to them. Textile-care ingredients may be present in the particles
according to the invention inside the microcapsules and/or outside of the microcapsules. See para. 68. In addition, a particle can also include water-binding substances. Particles according to the invention that include water-binding substances, preferably
in amounts of 0-20 wt%, particularly 0.1-10 wt%, where wt % is based on total particles, where the water-binding substance is chosen from zeolite, silica, textile-softening clay,
starch and/or derivatives thereof and/or cellulose (derivatives), such as preferably carboxymethylcellulose. See para. 77. A preferred particle according to the invention is
characterized in that the water-soluble or water-dispersible carrier has a particle size in the range of 0.1 to 30 mm, particularly 0.2 to 7 mm and most preferably 0.5 to 3 mm, for
example, in the range of0.8 to 2.5 mm. The particle as such may have a particle size in the range of ~0.1 to 30 mm, preferably ~0.2 to 10 mm, particularly ~0.5 to 5 mm, for example, in the range of 0.8 to 3 mm. See paras. 84-85. The particles may be produced by mixing the microcapsules with the water-soluble or water-dispersible material in typical mixing equipment. See paras. 88-92.
Sunder et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing particles, wherein the particles contain a carrier, a silicate, a benefit agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing particles, wherein the particles contain a carrier, a silicate, a benefit agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Sunder et al suggest a composition containing particles, wherein the particles contain a carrier, a silicate, a benefit agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunder et al (US 2011/0097369) as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Batchelor et al (US9,284,517).
Sunder et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Sunder et al do not teach the use of an anionic surfactant contained within the particle or an extruding step in making the particles as recited by the instant claims.
Batchelor et al teach large laundry detergent particles. See column 1. The coated laundry detergent particle comprises between 40 to 90 wt %, preferably 50 to 90 wt % of a surfactant, most preferably 70 to 90 wt %. Suitable anionic surfactants include alkyl sulphates, etc. See column 2. Preferably the anionic surfactant is present in the coated laundry detergent particle at levels between 15 to 85 wt %, more preferably 50 to 80 wt % on total surfactant. See column 3. The particles are made by mixing the ingredients and then fed to a twin-screw extruder which has a shaped orifice plate and cutter blade used to cut the mass into particles. See columns 8 and 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an anionic surfactant in the particles taught by Sunder et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Batchelor et al teach the use of an anionic surfactant within a similar particle and further, Sunder et al teach the use of textile cleaning agents within the particle in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an extruder to cut and form the particles as taught by Sunder et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Batchelor et al teach the use of an extruder and cutter to form similar particles and further, Sunder et al teach mixing the ingredients and forming particles in general.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunder et al (US 2011/0097369) as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-11 above, and further in view of EP 3,936,595.
Sunder et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Sunder et al do not teach the specific steps of cleaning laundry as recited by the instant claims.
‘595 teaches a process for making a particulate laundry detergent composition, wherein the process comprises the steps of: (a) contacting water, starch, acid and perfume to form a concentrated aqueous acidic mixture, wherein the concentrated acidic mixture comprises: (i) from 20wt% to 60wt% starch; (ii) from 1 0wt% to 50wt% acid; (ii) from 2wt% to 20wt% perfume; (iv) from 1 0wt% to less than 45wt% water; and wherein the concentrated acidic mixture has a pH of less than 4.5; (b) subjecting the concentrated acidic mixture to a perfume emulsification step to emulsify the perfume to form an emulsified perfume mixture in fluid form; and (c) spraying the emulsified perfume mixture in fluid form onto base detergent particles so that the emulsified perfume mixture at least partially coats the base detergent particles to form the particulate laundry detergent composition, wherein the base detergent particles comprise from 4wt% to 60wt% detersive surfactant. See Abstract. The method of laundering fabric comprises the step of contacting the solid composition to water to form a wash liquor, and laundering fabric in said wash liquor. Typically, the wash liquor has a
temperature of above 0°C to 90°C, or to 60°C, or to 40°C, or to 30°C, or to 20°C. The fabric may be contacted to the water prior to, or after, or simultaneous with, contacting the solid composition with water. Typically, the wash liquor is formed by contacting the laundry detergent to water in such an amount so that the concentration of laundry detergent composition in the wash liquor is from 0.2g/l to 20g/l, or from 0.5g/l to 1 0g/I, orto 5.0g/1. The method of laundering fabric can be carried out in a front-loading automatic washing machine, top loading automatic washing machines, including high efficiency automatic washing machines, or suitable hand-wash vessels. Typically, the wash liquor comprises 90 litres or less, or 60 litres or less, or 15 litres or less, or 10 litres or less of water. Typically, 200g or less, or 150g or less, or 1 00g or less, or 50g or less of laundry detergent composition is contacted to water to form the wash liquor. See para. 134.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to clean laundry by dispensing the composition as taught by Sunder et al in a washing machine and contact fabrics with the laundry composition as taught by Sunder et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘595 teaches dispensing a similar composition in a washing machine for cleaning laundry and contacting the laundry with the composition during the wash cycle of a washing machine and further, Sunder et al teach the use of cleaning laundry in general.
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 8-14 of copending Application No. 19/109393 (reference application) or claims 1-13 of 19/109487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6 and 8-14 of 19/109393 or claims 1-13 of 19/109487 encompass the material limitations of the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing particles, wherein the particles contain a carrier, a silicate, a benefit agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because claims 1-6 and 8-14 of 19/109393 or claims 1-13 of 19/109487 suggest a composition containing particles, wherein the particles contain a carrier, a silicate, a benefit agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/September 26, 2026
