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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The previously applied 112 rejection have been withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 16, 19, 21, 23-25, 27-32, 35-40, 42, 43, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013509495 (hereafter “JP ‘495”).
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘495 teaches a pouch (may be considered a unit does article), for example a dishwashing pouch (p. 54) having an exterior wall and having an interior pouch volume and further teaches that the pouch may be made of a nonwoven web comprising a plurality of filaments (pp. 3-5) and that the fibers or filaments may comprise blended mixtures of polyvinyl pyrrolidone (p. 13-14) and a PVOH that is grafted with, for example anionic sulfonic acid AMPs (see p. 14). JP ‘495 additionally teaches the pouch may contain a composition (e.g., p. 56). JP ‘495 teaches that the surfactant to treat the PVOH may be anionic (p. 16) and it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have used an anionic sulfur-compound as a surfactant in this case as one of the suitable surfactants to choose (e.g., pp. 16-17, 56).
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘495 additionally teaches that sulfonic acid may be included (p. 29, salts of sulfonic acid).
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘495 teaches the chelating agents (e.g., sulfonic acid) may be included in an amount of greater than 1 mol% (pp. 28-29).
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘495 additionally teaches that the article may comprise a starch (pp. 13-14).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, JP ‘495 additionally teaches the inclusion of, for example, a surfactant and that a surfactant may be further coated on a fiber for a nonwoven web. (e.g., p. 16).
Regarding claim 16, JP ‘495 additionally discloses polyethylene glycols (e.g., p. 13).
Regarding claim 19, JP ‘495 additionally discloses the inclusion of a starch filler that may be, for example, a hydroxyethylated starch (p. 14).
Regarding claim 21, JP ‘495 additionally discloses the inclusion of a surfactant that may be, for example, a quaternary amine (p. 18).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, because the web of modified JP ‘495 is made of highly modifiable polyvinyl alcohol, it would be expected that the web would inherently possess the claimed disintegration time and b* value under substantially similar testing conditions (see compositions described in the rejections above). Additionally, the adjustment a nonwoven article to improve disintegration times, including to within the claimed limits of these testing values, would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan seeking to improve disintegration of such types of dissolvable pouches (see p. 60).
Regarding claims 25, 27, 28-31, JP ‘495 additionally teaches the composition may include a base and may be a nitrate, for example (pp. 15, 18), may include a chlorine liberating compound (e.g., pp. 22, 26) and further teaches that the composition may include, for example, a sodium carbonate (p. 34). JP ‘495 additionally teaches a bleaching composition, such as a hypochlorite (chlorine bleach, p. 15).
Regarding claim 32, JP ‘495 additionally teaches the pouch may be used as a food and nutrition delivery mechanism (e.g., pp. 5-7).
Regarding claim 35, JP ‘495 additionally teaches that the active agent may be incorporated in an amount greater than 50% by weight (p. 8) and that an active agent may be among other things a chlorine bleach (p. 15).
Regarding claim 36 - 40, JP ‘495 additionally teaches that the article may be coated or applied with an oxygen scavenger (pp. 6-7) and the application of such a scavenger to any of first or second coating surfaces would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art in order to effectively protect the area or contents from oxygen degradation (e.g., pp. 6-7). JP ‘495 additionally teaches the inclusion of a tertiary amine compound (e.g., diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, DTPA, p. 29).
Regarding claim 41, JP ‘495 additionally teaches the inclusion of a bisphenol antioxidant (e.g., pp. 44-45).
Regarding claim 42, JP ‘495 additionally teaches that the amount of each of the one or more filament material is highly modifiable and may be on the range of from, for example, 10% to 95% (see pp. 9-10) and thus would read on the claimed ratios. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 43, JP ‘495 additionally teaches the inclusion of a PVOH modified with a maleic acid (p. 14).
Regarding claim 45, JP ‘495 additionally teaches a bleaching composition, such as a hypochlorite (chlorine bleach, p. 15) and that the active agent may be incorporated in an amount greater than 50% by weight (p. 8) and that an active agent may be among other things a chlorine bleach (p. 15).
Claim(s) 11, 41, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘495 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Barthel et al. (US 2007/0167340, “Barthel”).
Regarding claims 11 and 41, while JP ‘495 teaches antioxidants (pp. 44, 45), JP ‘495 fails to specifically teach that an antioxidant such as propyl gallate is included. However, in the same field of endeavor of polymeric pouches or containers (e.g., [0005] – [0010]), Barthel teaches that propyl gallate is a useful antioxidant that improves stabilization and prevent undesirable changes to the formulation caused by irradiation and radically induced decomposition ([0195]) and it therefore would have been obvious to have substituted the propyl gallate for an antioxidant of JP ‘495.
Regarding claim 46, while JP ‘495 teaches a bleaching composition, such as a hypochlorite (chlorine bleach, p. 15) and that the active agent may be incorporated in an amount greater than 50% by weight (p. 8) and that an active agent may be among other things a chlorine bleach (p. 15), JP ‘495 fails to specifically teach that an oxidant such as trichloroisocyanuric acid is included. However, such compounds are well known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of polymeric pouches or containers (e.g., [0005] – [0010]), Barthel teaches that trichloroisocyanuric acid is used as a suitable and common bleaching agent ([0478]) and therefore the simple substitution of trichloroisocyanuric acid for one of the bleaching agents of JP ‘495 would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (please see MPEP 2143, and see Barthel, [0478]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 44 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 44 is allowable over the available prior art because the prior art fails to teach a multi-member blend of materials for use in a packet such as the one claimed and including a maleate modified PVOH in the claimed amount. While blends of material are known in the art, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not find this specific composition obvious in view of the available prior art at the time of filing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/4/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 16, 19, 21, 23-25, 27-32, 35-43, 45, and 46 are rejected as described above. Claim 44 is objected to as described above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
