DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2026 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 47 recites “the water-dispersible substrate layer has a thickness in a range of 5 mm to 356 mm”. Given that claim 1 recites “a water-dispersible substrate layer having a thickness in a range of about 50 microns (mm) to about 300 mm”, claim 47 is broader than claim 1 and therefore claim 47 fails to further the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 48 recites “the water-dispersible substrate layer has a thickness in a range of 12 mm to 152 mm”. Given that claim 1 recites “a water-dispersible substrate layer having a thickness in a range of about 50 microns (mm) to about 300 mm”, claim 48 is broader than claim 1 and therefore claim 48 fails to further the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 11-14, 18, 25-34, 36, 37, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padget et al. (WO 98/21118 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 25, 30, 47 and 48, Padget et al. disclose a water-soluble sachet (water-dispersible article) comprising a water-soluble film comprising a dispersion of water-soluble organic polymer and a aqueous dispersion of a wax (see Abstract). The water-soluble (water-dispersible) organic polymer is polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of hydrolysis of 40-100% (see page 4, 28-33). The broad range of degree of hydrolysis overlaps with degree of hydrolysis in mol% as presently claimed. Given that there is no disclosure of modifying the polyvinyl alcohol, the polyvinyl alcohol polymer is unmodified. The wax is a water-dispersible wax such as paraffin wax (see page 3, lines 22-25). The water-soluble film can be a multilayer film comprising two films, wherein both layers can contain wax (see page 7, lines 27-31 and page 14, claim 12).
Accordingly, the water-soluble sachet is a multilayer water-dispersible article comprising a first water-soluble film (water-dispersible substrate layer) containing a polyvinyl alcohol and wax, and a second water-soluble film (water-dispersible coating layer) containing a polyvinyl alcohol and wax. That is, the multilayer water-dispersible article is a film. The water-soluble film has a thickness of about 40 microns (see page 9, lines 37-39). That is, each of the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer has a thickness of about 40 microns. Further, Padget et al. disclose bag-in-bag arrangement, wherein a packaged composition in a first sachet is enclosed within a second sachet (see page 8, lines 38-41).
The only deficiency of Padget et al. is that Padget et al. disclose the use of the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer having thickness of “about 40 microns”, while the present claims require the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer having thickness of “about 50 microns”, and the water-dispersible coating layer having thickness of “about 40 microns”, while the present claims require the water-dispersible coating layer having thickness of “about 50 microns”.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed thicknesses of the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer, and that taught by Padget et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the thicknesses of the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer disclosed by Padget et al. and the thicknesses disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thicknesses of the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the thicknesses disclosed in Padget et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Padget et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Padget et al. necessarily inherently has presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate.
Regarding claims 12-14, Padget et al. disclose that the water-soluble film comprises fillers and a plasticizer such as glycerol (see page 7, lines 32-35). That is, the water-dispersible substrate layer comprises fillers and plasticizer such as glycerol.
Regarding claim 18, Padget et al. disclose that the water-soluble film comprises fillers and a plasticizer such as glycerol (see page 7, lines 32-35). That is, the water-dispersible coating layer comprises fillers.
Regarding claims 26-29 and 33, given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Padget et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Padget et al. necessarily inherently has presently claimed properties.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Padget et al. disclose the water-soluble sachet can be formed and filled using thermoforming or vertical form-fill-sealing (see page 8, lines 33-34). Further, the sachet is formed using heat-sealing (see page 10, lines 28-36). Accordingly, the water-soluble sachet is thermoformable or heat sealable.
Further, given that the multilayer water-dispersible article (water soluble sachet) including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Padget et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Padget et al. necessarily inherently is heat sealable or thermoformable.
Regarding claims 34, 36 and 37, Padget et al. disclose the water-soluble sachet as set forth above. The water-soluble sachet is used for packaging a composition (see page 13, claim 1). Given that Padget et al. disclose the water-soluble sachet used for packaging the composition, the water-soluble sachet reads on a film in form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume, wherein a composition is contained in the interior pouch volume. Given that the water-soluble sachet comprises two water-soluble films both comprising polyvinyl alcohol and wax, the first water-soluble film (substrate layer) forms an interior surface of the pouch and the second water-soluble film (coating layer) forms an exterior surface of the pouch.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padget et al. (WO 98/21118 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hiura et al. (US 2018/0251614 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Padget et al. disclose the multilayer water-dispersible article as set forth above. Padget et al. disclose the water-dispersible substrate layer (water-soluble film) comprising an unmodified polyvinyl alcohol. Further, Padget et al. disclose that the water-soluble film can comprise fillers (see page 7, lines 32-35).
Padget et al. do not disclose fillers such as non-woven fiber.
Hiura et al. disclose a water-soluble film comprising polyvinyl alcohol and inorganic filler such as glass fibers (nonwoven fibers) (see Abstract and paragraph 0071). The inorganic filler imparts anti-blocking property, improves water dispersing effect and prevents a pinhole when being stretched (see paragraphs 0069-0070).
In light of motivation for using glass fibers disclosed by Hiura et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use glass fibers as fillers in the water-soluble film of Padget et al. in order to impart anti-blocking property, improve water dispersing effect and prevent a pinhole when being stretched, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padget et al. (WO 98/21118 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Verrall et al. (US 8,268,914 B2 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 15, Padget et al. disclose the multilayer water-dispersible article as set forth above. The multilayer water-dispersible article comprises the water-dispersible substrate layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol.
Padget et al. do not disclose polyvinyl alcohol as presently claimed.
Verrall et al. disclose a medium molecular weight PVOH resin having 4% aqueous viscosity of about 20 cps to about 30 cps at 20 °C provide processabilty and strength (see col. 2, lines 53-58).
In light of motivation for using a medium molecular weight PVOH resin having 4% aqueous viscosity of about 20 cps to about 30 cps at 20 °C disclosed by Verrall et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the medium molecular weight PVOH resin having 4% aqueous viscosity of about 20 cps to about 30 cps at 20 °C as the PVOH resin in the water-dispersible substrate layer of Padget et al. in order to provide processabilty and strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padget et al. (WO 98/21118 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Boswell et al. (US 2018/0369859 A1 cited in IDS), as evidenced by Tide Pods (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Padget et al. disclose the multilayer water-dispersible article as set forth above. Padget et al. disclose that the multilayer water-dispersible article is water-soluble sachet (pouch) comprising a composition as noted above. Further, the water-soluble sachet can be used for packaging a laundry care product such as detergents (see page 1, lines 5-11).
Padget et al. do not disclose a composition is a dry composition as presently claimed.
Boswell et al. disclose a film (a multilayer) comprising a water-soluble layer 105 (i.e. water-dispersible substrate layer) comprising polyvinyl alcohol polymer and an organic coating 115 comprising a paraffin wax (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0058, 0075, 0080). The film can be used to form article (see paragraph 0109). That is, a multilayer article. The article can be a pouch filled with a composition, wherein the composition can be solid, granular or powdered, i.e. dry composition. Further, an example of article includes Tide Pods (see paragraph 0124). As evidenced by Tide, Tide pods can comprise sodium borate (i.e. borax), sodium sulfate, etc. (see C, Ingredient name, pages 17 and 21). That is, the composition comprises borax or sodium sulfate.
Therefore, as taught by Boswell et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a composition that is dry composition comprising borax or sodium sulfate in the water-soluble sachet of Padget et al. to prepare a detergent pod for laundry care, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 19, 23, 25-34, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heile et al. (5,759,988 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 19, 23, 25, 30, 47 and 48, Heile et al. disclose a detergent article (a multilayer water-dispersible article) comprising a solid block detergent (dry composition) having a coating and a film envelope on the coating (see col. 3, lines 2-3 and 25-26, col. 4, lines 3-13, col. 8, lines 14-17 and col. 10, lines 11-13). The detergent article reads on a multilayer water-dispersible article that is a film.
The coating has a thickness of about 0.1 to 12 mm, i.e. about 100 to 12000 microns (see col. 8, lines 23-26). The coating can be made of a paraffin wax having a melting point of from about 60 to about 100 °C (see col. 9, lines 26-33). That is, the coating consists of paraffin wax. Accordingly, given that the coating consists of paraffin wax having a melting point of from about 60 to about 100 °C, the coating necessarily has a melting point in a range of from about 60 to about 100 °C. The coating can be water soluble coating, i.e. water-dispersible coating (see col. 9, lines 9-11). Further, given that the coating is identical to a water-dispersible coating as presently claimed, the coating of Heile et al. is water-dispersible coating.
The film envelope has a thickness of about 1 to 15 mil, i.e. about 25.4 to 381 microns (see col. 10, lines 55-56). The film envelope can be made of water-soluble film forming materials such as polyvinyl alcohol having about 70 to about 99.9% of degree of hydrolysis (see col. 10, lines 17-19 and 32-33). The broad range of degree of hydrolysis overlaps with degree of hydrolysis in mol% as presently claimed. Given that there is no disclosure of modifying the polyvinyl alcohol, the polyvinyl alcohol polymer is unmodified. Accordingly, the film envelope reads on a water-dispersible substrate layer.
Given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Heile et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Heile et al. necessarily inherently has presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate.
In light of the overlap between the claimed article and that disclosed by Heile et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an article that is both disclosed by Heile et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 26-29 and 33, given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Heile et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Heile et al. necessarily inherently has presently claimed properties.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Heile et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Heile et al. necessarily inherently is heat sealable or thermoformable.
Regarding claim 34, 37, 39 and 40, Heile et al. disclose the multilayer water-dispersible article (detergent article) as set forth above. Given that that the detergent article comprises a coating and a film envelope on the coating, the detergent article reads on a film in form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume, wherein a composition (detergent mass) is contained in the interior pouch volume. The composition (detergent mass) can be solid cleaning composition (dry composition) comprising sodium carbonate or sodium borate (borax) (see col. 4, lines 11-13 and lines 42-49).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heile et al. (5,759,988 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Verrall et al. (US 8,268,914 B2 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 15, Heile et al. disclose the multilayer water-dispersible article as set forth above. The multilayer water-dispersible article comprises the water-dispersible substrate layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol.
Heile et al. do not disclose polyvinyl alcohol as presently claimed.
Verrall et al. disclose a medium molecular weight PVOH resin having 4% aqueous viscosity of about 20 cps to about 30 cps at 20 °C provide processabilty and strength (see col. 2, lines 53-58).
In light of motivation for using a medium molecular weight PVOH resin having 4% aqueous viscosity of about 20 cps to about 30 cps at 20 °C disclosed by Verrall et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the medium molecular weight PVOH resin having 4% aqueous viscosity of about 20 cps to about 30 cps at 20 °C as the PVOH resin in the water-dispersible substrate layer of Heile et al. in order to provide processabilty and strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 42 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heile et al. (5,759,988 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 42 and 46, Heile et al. disclose a detergent article (a multilayer water-dispersible article) comprising a solid block detergent (dry composition) having a coating and a film envelope on the coating (see col. 3, lines 2-3 and 25-26, col. 4, lines 3-13, col. 8, lines 14-17 and col. 10, lines 11-13). The detergent article reads on a multilayer water-dispersible article that is a film.
The coating has a thickness of about 0.1 to 12 mm, i.e. about 100 to 12000 microns (see col. 8, lines 23-26). The coating can be made of a paraffin wax having a melting point of from about 60 to about 100 °C (see col. 9, lines 26-33). That is, the coating consists of paraffin wax. Accordingly, given that the coating consists of paraffin wax having a melting point of from about 60 to about 100 °C, the coating necessarily has a melting point in a range of from about 60 to about 100 °C. The coating can be water soluble coating, i.e. water-dispersible coating (see col. 9, lines 41-42). Further, given that the coating is identical to a water-dispersible coating as presently claimed, the coating of Heile et al. is water-dispersible coating.
The film envelope has a thickness of about 1 to 15 mil, i.e. about 0.025 mm to 0.38 mm (see col. 10, lines 55-56). The film envelope can be made of water-soluble film forming materials such as polyvinyl alcohol having about 70 to about 99.9% of degree of hydrolysis (see col. 10, lines 17-19 and 32-33). The broad range of degree of hydrolysis overlaps with degree of hydrolysis in mol% as presently claimed. Given that there is no disclosure of modifying the polyvinyl alcohol, the polyvinyl alcohol polymer is unmodified. Accordingly, the film envelope reads on a water-dispersible substrate layer.
The only deficiency of Heile et al. is that Heile et al. disclose the use of water-dispersible substrate layer having a thickness of “about 0.38 mm” while the present claims require water-dispersible substrate layer having a thickness of “0.5 mm”.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed thickness of water-dispersible substrate layer and that taught by Heile et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the thickness of water-dispersible substrate layer disclosed by Heile et al. and the thickness disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of water-dispersible substrate layer disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the thicknesses disclosed in Heile et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Heile et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Heile et al. necessarily inherently has presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicants argue that Padget, as acknowledged in the Office action, reports films with a dry film thickness (DFT) of about 80 µm, indeed Padget reports, "two films are cast each of about 40 µm." See, Padget, pg. 9, lines 37-39. Applicant submits that Padget does not teach or suggest a multilayer article comprising substrate and coating layers having a thickness as recited in the instant claims. As such, Applicant submits that because there is no overlap between the instantly claimed thickness of the substrate and coating layers and the film layers reported by Padget, the films reported by Padget necessarily do not have the presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR). Indeed, MVTR is characterized by the instant application as "the amount of moisture transmitted through the article, or layers thereof." See, [00113] on pg. 30 of the application as filed. Because the value is determined as transmission of moisture through each of the layers of the multilayer article, it necessitates that the thickness of each layer has a direct consequence on the rate of transmission.
Padget disclose each of the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer has a thickness of about 40 microns. Given that there is only a “slight” difference between the thicknesses of the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer (about 40 microns) and the water-dispersible coating layer (about 40 microns) disclosed by Padget et al. and the thicknesses of disclosed in the present claims (about 50 mircons), it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thicknesses of the water-soluble dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the thicknesses disclosed in Padget et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Given that thickness of about 40 microns is an obvious variant of thickness of 50 microns, Padget necessarily has the presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR), absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicants argue that further, the Office action does not point to any teaching or suggestion that would motivate a person skilled in the art to deviate from the films and laminates reported in Padget, to produce layers of different thicknesses as 80 µm is a key component of the films and laminates exemplified in Padget.
However, the examiner is not deviating from thicknesses recited in Padget. Instead, the examiner’s position is that the thicknesses recited in Padget (about 40 microns) is an obvious variant of thickness recited in present claim (about 50 microns).
Applicants argue that the deficiencies of Padget are delineated above. Hiura does not cure these deficiencies.
However, note that while Hiura do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Hirua is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely non-woven fiber, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that the deficiencies of Padget are delineated above. Verrall does not cure these deficiencies.
However, note that while Verrall do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Verrall is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a specific polyvinyl alcohol, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that the deficiencies of Padget are delineated above. Boswell and Tide Pods do not cure these deficiencies.
However, note that while Boswell do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Boswell is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely dry composition, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. Regarding Tide Pods, it is noted that Tide Pods is used as an evidence reference and not as the prior art.
Applicants argue that Heile, on the other hand, is directed to "a solid block detergent mass having a barrier coating," wherein "[o]nce coated the detergent article of the invention can be packaged in a separate film envelope." In other words, Heile is directed to a coated detergent article which is surrounded by a separate film article which can comprise a water-soluble or water insoluble film. Clearly, the Office's assessment that Heile reports an identical multilayer article as instantly claimed is unfounded.
However, nothing in the present claim excludes the water-dispersible substrate layer from being a separate film envelope. The separate film envelope is still part of the detergent article (a multilayer water-dispersible article).
Applicants argue that moreover, the coating layer of Heile comprises a thickness of "0.1 to 12 mm," (100 µm to 12,000 µm), and the separate film envelope comprises a thickness of"1 to 15 mil" (25.4 µm to about 381 µm). Because the instant claims do not recite a separate film envelope, Applicant submits that Heile does not teach or suggest a multilayer article comprising substrate and coating layers having a thickness as recited in the instant claims. As such, Applicant submits that because there is no overlap between the instantly claimed thickness of the substrate and coating layers and the barrier coating and film envelope reported by Heile, the detergent articles and film envelopes reported by Heile necessarily do not have the presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR). Indeed, MVTR is characterized by instant application as "the amount of moisture transmitted through the article, or layers thereof." See, [00113] of the application as filed. Because the value is determined as transmission of moisture through each of the layers of the multilayer article, it necessitates that the thickness of each layer has a direct consequence on the rate of transmission.
However, nothing in the present claim excludes the water-dispersible substrate layer from being a separate film envelope. The separate film envelope is still part of the detergent article (a multilayer water-dispersible article).
Further, the thickness of about 100 microns to 12,000 microns of the coating layer overlaps with thickness of water-dispersible coating as presently claimed, and thickness of about 25.4 to 381 microns of film envelope overlaps with thickness of water-dispersible substrate layer as presently claimed. Given that the multilayer water-dispersible article including the water-dispersible substrate layer and the water-dispersible coating layer of Heile et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the multilayer water-dispersible article of Heile et al. necessarily inherently has presently claimed moisture vapor transmission rate, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicants argue that further, the Office action does not point to any teaching or suggestion that would motivate a person skilled in the art to deviate from the detergent articles and film envelopes reported in Heile, to somehow produce a multilayered water-soluble article of the instant claims with any reasonable expectation of success.
However, nothing in the present claim excludes the water-dispersible substrate layer from being a separate film envelope. The separate film envelope is still part of the detergent article (a multilayer water-dispersible article). That is, the examiner is not deviating from detergent articles and film envelopes reported in Heile. Instead, it is examiner’s position that film envelope broadly reads on the water-dispersible substrate layer.
Applicants argue that as described more fully above, Heile does not in fact report a "water-dispersible substrate layer" but rather reports a separate film envelope which can be used as packaging for the detergent article reported therein. Applicant reiterates that Heile does not teach a substrate layer upon which a coating layer is present as required by the instant claims. As such, the thickness of the film envelope is not comparable to that of the substrate layer recited in the instant claims.
However, nothing in the present claim excludes the water-dispersible substrate layer from being a separate film envelope. The separate film envelope is still part of the detergent article (a multilayer water-dispersible article). The thickness of about 25.4 to 381 microns of film envelope overlaps with thickness of water-dispersible substrate layer as presently claimed as noted above.
Applicants argue that the deficiencies of Heile are delineated above. Verrall does not cure these deficiencies.
However, note that while Verrall do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Verrall is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a specific polyvinyl alcohol, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights