The Procter & Gamble Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021001384 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/508,418 07/11/2019 Robby Renilde Francois Keuleers CM4552C 4380 27752 7590 03/25/2022 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GLOBAL IP SERVICES CENTRAL BUILDING, C9 ONE PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLAZA CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER BOYER, CHARLES I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): centraldocket.im@pg.com mayer.jk@pg.com pair_pg@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBBY RENILDE FRANCOIS KEULEERS, STEFAN SCHITTKO, ALICE MICHELE BOUTOILLE, NIGEL PATRICK SOMERVILLE ROBERTS, and ALAN THOMAS BROOKER __________ Appeal 2021-001384 Application 16/508,418 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-14, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s invention is directed to water-soluble unit dose articles comprising an amphoteric surfactant (Spec. 1:5-6). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Procter & Gamble Company. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2021-001384 Application 16/508,418 2 1. A method of washing a fabric, the method comprising the steps of: a. providing a water-soluble unit dose article, the water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry detergent composition, wherein the liquid laundry detergent composition comprises a non-soap anionic surfactant and an amphoteric surfactant, wherein the amphoteric surfactant is present in the liquid laundry detergent composition at a level of from about 1 % to about 5%, by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition, wherein the amphoteric surfactant is amine oxide; b. adding the water-soluble unit dose article to sufficient water to dilute the liquid laundry detergent composition to create a wash liquor; and c. contacting fabric to be washed with the wash liquor, wherein the article is used in an automatic fabric wash operation. Appellant appeals the following rejections2: Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wang (US 2012/0077725 A1). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. 2 The Examiner withdrew the § 103 rejections of claims 1-13 and 20 over Miracle (US 2015/0074919) and claims 1-14 and 17-20 over Mangin (US 2003/0213500) (Ans. 4). Appeal 2021-001384 Application 16/508,418 3 Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Appellant argues the subject matter of claim 1 only (Appeal Br. 6-8). Accordingly, claims 2-14 and 17-20 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Wang are located on pages 4 to 5 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that Wang does not disclose a unit dose/pouch formulation that includes amine oxide, much less a method of using such a pouch in an automatic fabric wash operation (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant’s argument amounts to a recognition that Wang does not anticipate the subject matter of claim 1. The Examiner finds Wang teaches laundry detergent that includes 2% alkylamine oxide in detergent C in paragraph 193 (Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner finds that Wang teaches using the laundry detergent compositions in polyvinyl alcohol unit-dose pouches (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to deliver a laundry detergent using unit-dose pouches in light of Wang’s teachings to do so (Final Act. 5). Wang discloses using the fabric care composition in a washing machine where the fabric care composition (detergent) may be added to water to form an aqueous laundering solution (Wang ¶ 153). Wang teaches the detergent product of the present invention may comprise a water-soluble pouch which may contain multi-compartments (Wang ¶ 207). Wang teaches that the detergent product of the invention, which includes the detergent C in paragraph 193, may be placed in water soluble pouches (Wang ¶¶ 87, 207). Appeal 2021-001384 Application 16/508,418 4 In other words, Wang teaches that a detergent such as heavy-duty liquid laundry detergent C in paragraph 193 may be used in a water-soluble unit- dose. The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness over Wang. Appellant argues the Specification demonstrates “surprising results.” (Appeal Br. 9). We understand Appellant to be arguing unexpected results. Appellant contends the present disclosure exhibits minimized liquid detergent volume leakage from prematurely ruptured unit dose articles (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant refers to the data in Table 2 of the Specification, which Appellant contends that the data show the addition of amphoteric surfactant (amine oxide) in Example A leads to less liquid running out of a pinholed water soluble unit dose article upon applying pressure (Appeal Br. 9-10). Appellant argues Wang does not recognize the anti-leakage benefits provided by adding amine oxide in a water soluble pouch such that a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to select amine oxide form the many ingredients to add to Wang’s detergent composition absent hindsight (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant’s arguments regarding hindsight and no motivation to select amine oxide are countered by the express teaching in Wang’s Example C disclosure of paragraph 193 where amine oxide is added to a laundry detergent composition in an amount within the claimed range. Appellant’s unexpected results are not probative of non-obviousness because claim 1 is broad in that no components or ranges are recited for liquid laundry detergent. Only amine oxide in a range from 1% to 5% is listed a component of the detergent in claim 1. Stated differently, Appellant’s showing a single detergent composition having 2% amine oxide compared to Appeal 2021-001384 Application 16/508,418 5 the same detergent composition having no amine oxide is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the breadth of claim 1. Appellant has not shown “surprising results” over a reasonable range representative of the scope of claim 1. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1-14 ad 17-20 over Wang. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-14, 17-20 103 Wang 1-14, 17-20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED