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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 7, 12 – 16, 18 – 35 and 37 – 38. Claims 8 – 11, 17 and 36 are cancelled.
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 – 4, 6, 11, 32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0118237 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,829,478 B2) and Bridewell (WO2021/067476 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Krzysik teaches an article for hand-washing an object (Paragraph [0002]), comprising: a core substrate (Paragraph [0013]) comprising a plurality of fibers (Paragraph [0030]) including a resin (Paragraph [0025]), the core substrate having an abrasive surface (Paragraph [0011]) and containing a solvent and an active cleaning formulation (Paragraph [0028]) disposed on a surface of the core substrate (Paragraphs [0013] and [0037]), wherein the core substrate is water-dispersible upon contact with water (Abstract) having a temperature and is water-soluble upon contact with water (Abstract) according to Testing Method MSTM-205 to release the active cleaning formulation from the core substrate (Abstract).
Krzysik explicitly teaches the cleansing wipes are water disintegratable such that upon contact with water, the cleansing wipes release the cleansing agent and begin to dissolve/disperse into the water. Full dissolution/dispersion of the cleansing wipes occurs in about 60 seconds or less after contact with water to allow for a sufficient time for cleansing of the hands or other skin area but does not explicitly teach the temperature of 40 degrees C.
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface containing a solvent, as taught by Johnson, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Examiner further notes that Applicants specification provides dissolution in 300 seconds or less.
Krzysik does not explicitly teach a multi-layer article, the core substrate having a second smooth surface; wherein the multi-layer article comprises a plurality of core substrate layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof.
Johnson, however teaches a core substrate (article, 10) having a first abrasive surface (first opposing surface, 16; with textured layer, 14; Fig. 2; Col. 3, lines 50 – 67), a second smooth surface (second opposing surface, 18; Fig. 2) and containing a solvent (Col. 7, lines 32 – 46).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface containing a solvent, as taught by Johnson, to provide an article scrubbing and with drying capabilities, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Bridewell, further, teaches a multi-layer article (Paragraph [0140]) wherein the multi-layer article comprises a plurality of core substrate layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0140]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include a multi-layer comprises a plurality of core substrate layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof, as taught by Bridewell, to provide an article which will take longer to dissolve, thus allowing for effecting scrubbing of an object.
Regarding Claim 2, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the core substrate has a dispersion time of 300 seconds or less (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 3, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the core substrate is water-soluble upon contact with water having a temperature of greater than 400C according to Testing Method MSTM-205 (Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 4, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the core substrate has a moisture content of less than 10 wt.% (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the active cleaning formulation is in the form of at least one of the following: a solid, a liquid, a gel, or a slurry form (Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 11, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the active cleaning formulation comprises a carrier solvent (Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 32, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the abrasive surface comprises a plurality of particles comprising the active cleaning formulation bonded onto the core substrate (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 38, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein a single unit dose of the active cleaning formulation is about 0.5 gram (g) to about 250g (Krzysik teaches the cleaning article the wipe has a material basis weight of from about 25 grams/square meter to about 120 grams/square meter (claim 4) and about 20% (by weight) to about 30% (by weight) of the cleansing agent; thus Krzysik teaches a single unit dose of the active cleaning formulation is about 0.5 gram (g) to about 250g (20% X 120grams=24g/m^2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0118237 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,829,478 B2), and Bridewell (WO2021/067476 A1) and Sharmila et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0158148 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article of claim 1 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the abrasive surface has an Ra value of 8 uin (0.2 pm) to 60 uin (1.5 pm).
Sharmila, however, teaches the abrasive surface backing and lower surfaces, 102 and 103) has an Ra value of 8 uin (0.2 pm) to 60 uin (1.5 pm; Paragraphs [0034] – [0035]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include a nonwoven substrate in the form of a nonwoven sheet, a plurality of nonwoven sheets bonded to form a nonwoven block substrate, or a plurality of nonwoven sheets coupled to form a sphere or spheroid, as taught by Branham, to provide an article with smoothing capabilities, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0118237 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,829,478 B2) and Kilkenny et al. (WO 2005072116 A2).
Regarding Independent Claim 7, Krzysik teaches an article for hand-washing an object (Paragraph [0002]), comprising: a core substrate (Paragraph [0013]) comprising a plurality of fibers (Paragraph [0030]) including a resin (Paragraph [0025]), the core substrate having an abrasive surface (Paragraph [0011]) and containing a solvent an active cleaning formulation (Paragraph [0028]) disposed on a surface of the core substrate (Paragraphs [0013] and [0037]), wherein the core substrate is water-dispersible upon contact with water having a temperature (Abstract) and is water-soluble upon contact with water (Abstract) according to Testing Method MSTM-205 to release the active cleaning formulation from the core substrate (Paragraph [0036]), wherein the active cleaning formulation comprises one or more of the following: a sanitizer or sanitizing agent, a detergent, a surfactant, an emulsifier, a chelants, a dirt suspender, a stain lifter or releaser, an enzyme, a pH adjuster, a builder, a soil release agent, a structurant, a free fragrance an encapsulated fragrance, a preservative, a solvent, a mineral, a foam builder, an HLB adjuster, or a degreaser, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0011]).
Krzysik explicitly teaches the cleansing wipes are water disintegratable such that upon contact with water, the cleansing wipes release the cleansing agent and begin to dissolve/disperse into the water. Full dissolution/dispersion of the cleansing wipes occurs in about 60 seconds or less after contact with water to allow for a sufficient time for cleansing of the hands or other skin area but does not explicitly teach the temperature of 40 degrees C.
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface containing a solvent, as taught by Johnson, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Examiner further notes that Applicants specification provides dissolution in 300 seconds or less.
Krzysik does not explicitly teach the core substrate having a second smooth surface containing a solvent; wherein the core substrate comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof; and wherein the solvent comprises one or more of the following: octanol, heptanol, hexanol, pentanol, butanol, propanol, tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, acetone, ethanol, N- methylpyrrolidone, methanol, acetonitrile, ethylene glycol, N, N-dimethylformide, glycerol, dimethyl sulfoxide, formic acid, DMSO, hexanes, cyclohexane, methylpentane, pentane, cyclopropane, dioxane, benzene, pyridine, xylene, toluene, diethyl ether, chloroform or a combination thereof.
Johnson, however teaches a core substrate (article, 10) having a first abrasive surface (first opposing surface, 16; with textured layer, 14; Fig. 2; Col. 3, lines 50 – 67), a second smooth surface (second opposing surface, 18; Fig. 2) and containing a solvent (Col. 7, lines 32 – 46); wherein the core substrate comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof (Col. 5, lines 46 – 58).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface, as taught by Johnson, to provide an article scrubbing and with drying capabilities, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Kilkenny further teaches the core substrate (Paragraph [0002]) having containing a solvent (Paragraphs [00141] – [00142]); and wherein the solvent comprises one or more of the following: octanol, heptanol, hexanol, pentanol, butanol, propanol, tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, acetone, ethanol, N- methylpyrrolidone, methanol, acetonitrile, ethylene glycol, N, N-dimethylformide, glycerol, dimethyl sulfoxide, formic acid, DMSO, hexanes, cyclohexane, methylpentane, pentane, cyclopropane, dioxane, benzene, pyridine, xylene, toluene, diethyl ether, chloroform or a combination thereof (Paragraph [00249]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate containing a solvent, as taught by Kilkenny, to provide an article to increase the cleaning and degreasing process, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Claims 12 – 16, 18 – 31, 33 and 35 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0118237 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,829,478 B2), Bridewell (WO2021/067476 A1) and Branham et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0018641 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Krzysik further teaches fibers having a length, as all fibers have a length however the reference does not explicitly teach wherein each fiber of the plurality of fibers having a length of 10 mm to 100 mm.
Branham, however, teaches an article (nonwoven web, 10) wherein each fiber of the plurality of fibers having a length of 10 mm to 100 mm (Paragraph [0051]).
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 article of Krzysik to further explicitly include wherein each fiber of the plurality of fibers having a length of 10 mm to 100 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach wherein each fiber of the plurality of fibers having a length to diameter (L/D) ratio of 0.5 to 25.
Branham, however, teaches an article (nonwoven web, 10) wherein each fiber of the plurality of fibers having a length (Paragraph [0051]) to diameter (L/D) ratio of 0.5 to 25 (Paragraph [0059]).
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 article of Krzysik to further explicitly include each fiber of the plurality of fibers having a length to diameter (L/D) ratio of 0.5 to 25, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Krzysik further teaches a single layer (Paragraph [0013]) but does not explicitly teach wherein the core substrate comprises a nonwoven substrate in the form of a nonwoven sheet, a plurality of nonwoven sheets bonded to form a nonwoven block substrate, or a plurality of nonwoven sheets coupled to form a sphere or spheroid.
Branham, however, teaches wherein the core substrate comprises a nonwoven substrate (10) in the form of a nonwoven sheet (Fig. 1), a plurality of nonwoven sheets bonded to form a nonwoven block substrate, or a plurality of nonwoven sheets coupled to form a sphere or spheroid (Paragraph [0052]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include a nonwoven substrate in the form of a nonwoven sheet, a plurality of nonwoven sheets bonded to form a nonwoven block substrate, or a plurality of nonwoven sheets coupled to form a sphere or spheroid, as taught by Branham, to provide an article with durability, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Regarding Claims 15 and 37, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claims 1 and 34 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach wherein the active cleaning formulation comprises one or more of the following sanitizing agents: quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), halogenated oxidizers, hypochlorous acid generating compounds, hypochlorite generating compounds, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin, dichloroisocyanuric acid, alcohols, oxygen radical generators, hydrogen peroxide (H202), sulfate generating compounds, methylisothiazolinone (MIT), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), or sodium metabisulfite.
Branham, however, teaches wherein the active cleaning formulation comprises one or more of the following sanitizing agents: quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), halogenated oxidizers, hypochlorous acid generating compounds, hypochlorite generating compounds, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin, dichloroisocyanuric acid, alcohols, oxygen radical generators, hydrogen peroxide (H202), sulfate generating compounds, methylisothiazolinone (MIT), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), or sodium metabisulfite (Paragraph [0036]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the active cleaning formulation comprises one or more of the following sanitizing agents: quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), halogenated oxidizers, hypochlorous acid generating compounds, hypochlorite generating compounds, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin, dichloroisocyanuric acid, alcohols, oxygen radical generators, hydrogen peroxide (H202), sulfate generating compounds, methylisothiazolinone (MIT), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), or sodium metabisulfite, as taught by Branham, to provide an article with durability, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Regarding Claim 16, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach wherein the core substrate comprises at least one nonwoven sheet comprising a plurality of fibers made of the resin.
Branham, however, teaches wherein the core substrate comprises at least one nonwoven sheet comprising a plurality of fibers made of the resin (Paragraphs [0048] and [0070]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate comprises at least one nonwoven sheet comprising a plurality of fibers made of the resin, as taught by Branham, to provide an article that is sufficiently biodegradable, thus protects the environment.
Regarding Claim 18, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 16 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach wherein the active formulation is one of disposed on a surface of the plurality of fibers.
Branham, however, teaches wherein the active formulation is one of disposed on a surface of the plurality of fibers or embedded in the plurality of fibers (Paragraph [0030]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the active formulation is one of disposed on a surface of the plurality of fibers or embedded in the plurality of fibers, as taught by Branham, to provide an article where the formula is well dispersed thus providing the best benefit to the user.
Regarding Claim 19, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 16 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach wherein the core substrate includes a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed between adjacent layers of the plurality of layers.
Branham, however, teaches wherein a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed between adjacent layers of the plurality of layers (Paragraph [0030]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed between adjacent layers of the plurality of layers, as taught by Branham, to provide an article where the formula is well dispersed thus providing the best benefit to the user.
Regarding Claims 20 and 35, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claims 16and 34 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach wherein the resin is a polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety.
Branham, however, teaches wherein the resin is a polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety (Paragraph [0005]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the resin is a polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety, as taught by Branham, to provide an article where an improved technique for applying agents to a non-woven web are more efficiently transferred to the user.
Regarding Claim 21, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 20 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety includes a polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer, a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer, or a combination thereof.
Branham, however, teaches the polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety (Paragraph [0005]) includes a polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer, a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0022]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include includes a polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer, a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer, as taught by Branham, to provide an article where an improved technique for applying agents to a non-woven web are more efficiently transferred to the user.
Regarding Claim 22, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 20 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer is a copolymer of vinyl acetate and vinyl alcohol or an anionically modified copolymer.
Branham, however, teaches the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer is a copolymer of vinyl acetate and vinyl alcohol or an anionically modified copolymer (Paragraph [0024]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer is a copolymer of vinyl acetate and vinyl alcohol or an anionically modified copolymer, as taught by Branham, to provide an article where an improved technique for applying agents to a non-woven web are more efficiently transferred to the user.
Regarding Claim 23 “wherein the anionically modified copolymer comprises a carboxylate, a sulfonate, or combinations thereof; the limitation is directed towards a non-elected limitation of claim 22.
Regarding Claim 24, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 20 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the plurality of fibers comprise a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 95 % to 98 %.
Branham, however, teaches the plurality of fibers comprise a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 95 % to 98 % (Paragraph [0026]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer is a copolymer of vinyl acetate and vinyl alcohol or an anionically modified copolymer, as taught by Branham, to provide an article wherein the polymer is readily soluble in water at room temperature, thus providing an improvement to the cleaning article.
Regarding Claim 25, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 20 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the plurality of fibers comprise a first type of fiber comprising a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 75% to 89.9 %, and a second type of fiber comprising a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 90% to 99.99%.
Branham, however, teaches the plurality of fibers comprise a first type of fiber comprising a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 75% to 89.9% and a second type of fiber comprising a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 90% to 99.99% (Paragraph [0026] and [0049]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the plurality of fibers comprise a first type of fiber comprising a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 75% to 89.9%, and a second type of fiber comprising a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 90% to 99.99%, as taught by Branham, to provide an article wherein the polymer is readily soluble in water at room temperature, thus providing an improvement to the cleaning article.
Regarding Claim 26, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 25 as discussed above.
Krzysik as modified by Branham does not explicitly teach a ratio of the first type of fiber to the second type of fiber is in a range of from 5:95 to 25:75 by weight, 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 article of Krzysik as modified by Branham, to further include a ratio of the first type of fiber to the second type of fiber is in a range of from 5:95 to 25:75 by weight, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 27, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 25 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the wherein the first type of fiber comprises a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 80% to 89%, and the second type of fiber comprises a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 95% to 98%.
Branham, however, teaches the first type of fiber comprises a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 80% to 89%, and the second type of fiber comprises a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 95% to 98% (Paragraph [0026] and [0049]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the first type of fiber comprises a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 80% to 89%, and the second type of fiber comprises a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer having a degree of hydrolysis in a range of 95% to 98%, as taught by Branham, to provide an article wherein the polymer is readily soluble in water at room temperature, thus providing an improvement to the cleaning article.
Regarding Claim 28, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 25 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the core substrate comprises at least one nonwoven sheet including a mixture of the first type of fiber and the second type of fiber.
Branham, however, teaches at least one nonwoven sheet including a mixture of the first type of fiber and the second type of fiber (Paragraph [0049]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate comprises at least one nonwoven sheet including a mixture of the first type of fiber and the second type of fiber, as taught by Branham, to provide an article wherein the polymer is readily soluble in water at room temperature, thus providing an improvement to the cleaning article.
Regarding Claim 29, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 20 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the core substrate further comprises fibers made of a polymer, which is not a polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety.
Branham, however, teaches the core substrate further comprises fibers made of a polymer, which is not a polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety (Paragraph [0004]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate further comprises fibers made of a polymer, which is not a polymer comprising a vinyl alcohol moiety, as taught by Branham, to provide an article wherein the polymer is readily soluble in water at room temperature, thus providing an improvement to the cleaning article.
Regarding Claim 30, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article according to claim 20 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the article wherein the core substrate comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof .
Branham, however, teaches the article wherein the core substrate comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0052]) .
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers selected from a nonwoven sheet, a foam layer, a film, or any combination thereof, as taught by Branham, to provide an article with durability, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Regarding Claim 31, Krzysik, as modified, teaches the article wherein the plurality of layers includes separate sheets in a plied construction or a continuous sheet folded in a serpentine construction (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 33, Krzysik teaches the article according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the resin is biodegradable.
Branham, however, teaches the article wherein the resin is biodegradable (Paragraph [0048]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the resin is biodegradable, as taught by Branham, to provide an article that is easily disposed of, thus protecting the environment.
Regarding Claim 36, Krzysik teaches the article according to claim 34 as discussed above.
Krzysik does not teach the core substrate includes a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed in each of the plurality of layers.
Branham, however, teaches a plurality of nonwoven layers (Paragraphs [0050] and [0051]), and the active cleaning formulation is disposed in each of the plurality of layers (Paragraph [0030]).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate includes a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed in each of the plurality of layers, as taught by Branham, to provide an article where the formula is well dispersed thus providing the best benefit to the user.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0118237 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,829,478 B2), Bridewell (WO2021/067476 A1) and Tan (WO 2019 056686) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Independent Claim 34, Krzysik teaches an article for hand-washing an object (Paragraph [0002]), comprising: a core substrate (Paragraph [0013]) comprising a plurality of fibers (Paragraph [0030]) including a resin (Paragraph [0025]), the core substrate having an abrasive surface (Paragraph [0011]) and containing an active cleaning formulation (Paragraphs [0013], [0028] and [0037]), wherein the core substrate is water-dispersible upon contact with water having a temperature (Abstract) and is water-soluble upon contact with water (Abstract) according to Testing Method MSTM-205 to release the active cleaning formulation from the core substrate (Paragraph [0036]), wherein the active cleaning formulation is at least one of disposed on a surface of the core substrate or embedded in a matrix of the core substrate (Paragraph [0037]), wherein the abrasive surface comprises an abrasive material that is contained within the core substrate (Paragraphs [0011], [0014] and [0032]).
Krzysik explicitly teaches the cleansing wipes are water disintegratable such that upon contact with water, the cleansing wipes release the cleansing agent and begin to dissolve/disperse into the water. Full dissolution/dispersion of the cleansing wipes occurs in about 60 seconds or less after contact with water to allow for a sufficient time for cleansing of the hands or other skin area but does not explicitly teach the temperature of 40 degrees C.
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface containing a solvent, as taught by Johnson, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Examiner further notes that Applicants specification provides dissolution in 300 seconds or less.
Krzysik does not explicitly teach the core substrate having a second smooth surface; wherein the core substrate includes a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed in each of the plurality of layers.
Johnson, however teaches a core substrate (article, 10) having a first abrasive surface (first opposing surface, 16; with textured layer, 14; Fig. 2; Col. 3, lines 50 – 67), a second smooth surface (second opposing surface, 18; Fig. 2).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface, as taught by Johnson, to provide an article scrubbing and with drying capabilities, thus proving an improved surface cleaning.
Tan, however, teaches the core substrate having the active cleaning formulation is disposed in each of the plurality of layers (12; 14; Page 29, line 31 – Page 30, line 11).
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 article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate includes a plurality of nonwoven layers, and the active cleaning formulation is disposed in each of the plurality of layers, as taught by Tan, to provide an article where the formula is well dispersed thus providing the best benefit to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025, 2025 with respect to rejection claims 1 – 7, 12 – 16, 18 – 35 and 37 – 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and they are not persuasive, therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicants’ argues “Krzysik does not teach "the core substrate is water-dispersible upon contact with water and is water-soluble upon contact with water having a temperature to release the active cleaning formulation from the core substrate.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Krzysik explicitly teaches the cleansing wipes are water disintegratable such that upon contact with water, the cleansing wipes release the cleansing agent and begin to dissolve/disperse into the water. Full dissolution/dispersion of the cleansing wipes occurs in about 60 seconds or less after contact with water to allow for a sufficient time for cleansing of the hands (Abstract). Although Krzysik does not explicitly teach the temperature, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Krzysik to further include the core substrate having a first abrasive surface, a second smooth surface containing a solvent, as taught by Johnson, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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