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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 7, 12 – 18, 21 and 24 – 28 are pending. Claims 3 – 5, 8 – 11, 19 – 20 and 22 – 23 cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 2, 6 – 7, 12 – 13, 15 – 16, 18, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Simon teaches a dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) comprising a water soluble (Paragraph [0011]) base material (Paragraph [0047]) that completely dissolves in water (Paragraph [0032]), said base material comprising a non-woven web, water soluble fibers (Paragraph [0047];Claim 5), polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0050]); wherein the wipe is impregnated with an oil (Paragraphs [0105], [0143] and [0156]) and wherein the wipe includes a cleaning substance (Paragraph [0093]).
Simon further teaches calendaring finishing process (Paragraph [0050]) does not explicitly teach the web has a wet-laid fiber structure.
Ramaratnam, however, teaches a wet-laid fiber structure (Paragraphs [0055] – [0075]) and further teaches calendaring finishing process (Paragraph [0075]).
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 wipe of Simone to further include the web has a wet-laid fiber structure, as taught by Ramaratnam, to provide a process that is cost effective thus proving savings to the overall project.
Regarding claim 2, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the base material consists entirely of the water soluble fibers (Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the wet wipe has a rhomboid, rectangular or square shape (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the wet wipe is suitable to be dispensed from a sealed pack (Paragraph [0028] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the oil is selected from baby oil, almond oil and mineral oil (Paragraph [0156]).
Regarding claim 13, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the moist or wet wipe comprises a material finish and texture that is a soft finish or a mildly abrasive finish (Paragraph [0162]).
Regarding claim 15, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the
Regarding claim 16, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol (Claim 23).
Regarding claim 18, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) in which the wipe is in a glove form (Claim 33).
Regarding claim 25, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) wherein the stabilising liquid comprises mineral oil (Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 27, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (Fig. 3) wherein the water soluble fibers comprise water soluble polyvinyl alcohol fibers (Paragraph [0079]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Ouellette et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0227203 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim1 as discussed above.
Simone does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the surface of the wipe is compressed during manufacturing to produce grip points for more effective abrasive.
Ouellette, however, teaches the dissolvable wipe (10) in which the surface of the wipe is compressed during manufacturing to produce grip points for more effective abrasive (Fig. 3).
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 wipe of Simone to further include the surface of the wipe is compressed during manufacturing to produce grip points for more effective abrasive, as taught by Ouellette, to provide a wipe that has both wet strength and soft bulk so as to appear to a consumer to have sufficient durability and bulkiness for using in cleaning a variety of surfaces.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim1 as discussed above.
Simone does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the dimension of the wipe is 5" x 5" for medical applications and 7" x 8" for personal and industrial applications, however, 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 wipe of Simon to further include the moist or wet wipe in which the dimension of the wipe is 5" x 5" for medical applications and 7" x 8" for personal and industrial applications, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 21, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim1 as discussed above.
Simone does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, however, 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 wipe of Simon to further include the moist or wet wipe in which approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In this situation, one could provide the dissolvable wipe in which approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, as desired by the user depending on the particular use of the wipe.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Bonner et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0272836 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim1 as discussed above.
Simone does not teach the dissolvable wipe wherein the stabilising liquid comprises almond oil.
Bonner, however, teaches the dissolvable wipe wherein the stabilising liquid comprises almond oil (Paragraph [0058]).
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 wipe of Simone to further include the stabilising liquid comprises almond oil, as taught by Bonner, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component/material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the wipe.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Stolartz et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0239344 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim1 as discussed above.
Simone does not teach the dissolvable wipe wherein the stabilising liquid comprises baby oil.
Stolartz, however, teaches the wipe wherein the stabilising liquid comprises baby oil (Paragraph [0062]).
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 wipe of Simone to further include the stabilising liquid comprises baby oil, as taught by Stolartz, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component/material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the wipe.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0159730 A1) in view of Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) and Marsh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0268777 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Simon, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim1 as discussed above.
Simone does not teach the dissolvable wipe wherein the cleaning substance comprises a C9-C12 iso paraffin.
Marsh, however, teaches the dissolvable wipe wherein the cleaning substance comprises a C9-C12 iso paraffin (Claim 16).
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 wipe of Simone to further include the cleaning substance comprises a C9-C12 iso paraffin, as taught by Marsh, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component/material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the wipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 with respect to rejection to claims 1 – 3, 6 – 8, 12 – 18, 21 and 23 – 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive, therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Rajaratnam’s fibers are incompatible with Simon’s”.
Examiner notes the argument is moot as Examiner is not relying on any fibers of Rajaratnam in the current rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights