DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/22/2022 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/31/2025 has been fully considered. An initialed copy of said IDS is enclosed herein.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 1 includes the same limitations as claim 19. 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 24 is 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 1 has been amended to include the limitations of claim 24. 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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 14-24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell et al (US 2018//0369859) in view of Wilhoit et al (US 2006/0068212).
Boswell teaches a multilayer water-dispersible article (see figure 2) comprising a polymer layer comprising a water-soluble polymer (abstract). The water soluble film may comprise PVOH. The multilayer water-dispersible article has a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of about 60 g H2O/m7/day to about 300 g H2O/m7/day (0103). The water-dispersible film may comprise an anti-blocking agent (093).
Boswell does not explicitly teach wherein a wax emulsion is present in water-dispersible layer in “amount ranging from about 5-30wt%, based on 100 parts by weight of the water-soluble polymer”. However, Wilhoit teaches wax emulsions may be added to water-dispersible films as an anti-blocking additive (0007). It is believed that the wax migrates to the surface to create a "non-stick" surface and that the application of heat to the film during the formation process can facilitate the migration, or "blooming," of the wax to the surface of the polymeric layer (0039). The wax may be provided in any amount required to impart the desired anti-blocking characteristics (0048). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add wax to the water-dispersible film taught in Boswell because Wilhoit teaches wax is an effective anti-blocking additive. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amounts of wax present in the film in order to optimize the anti-blocking properties of the film. With regards to the amount of wax in the emulsion, said limitation is understood to be a method limitation which specifies how the wax is added to the polymer composition. Said limitation fails to distinguish the claimed product from the product of the prior art as the courts have held the method of making a product does not patentably distinguish a claimed product from a product taught in the prior art unless applicant can demonstrate the claimed method of making the product inherently results in a materially different product. In the present case, no such showing has been made.
With regards to the limitation requiring an “intermediate region disposed between the water-soluble polymer layer and the wax layer comprising a mixture of the water soluble polymer layer and the wax layer,” the examiner takes the position that the blooming/migration of the wax from the water-dispersible film will inherently form such a region.
With regards to claims 3-5, Boswell teaches the polymer may comprise unmodified polyvinyl alcohol (0004).
With regards to claim 11, Boswell teaches the polyvinyl alcohol may be fully hydrolyzed, herein understood to read on the claimed “degree of hydrolysis of at least 88 mol%” (0080).
With regards to claim 12, Boswell teaches the polyvinyl alcohol may be fully hydrolyzed, herein understood to read on the claimed “degree of hydrolysis in a range from 90 mol% to less than 99 mol%.” (0080).
With regards to claim 14, Boswell teaches the water-soluble polymer may comprise a cellulose ether (0075).
With regards to claim 15, Boswell teaches the cellulose ether comprises carboxymethylcellulose (0075).
With regards to claim 16, Boswell teaches the multilayer water-dispersible article comprises a first face and a second face opposing the first face, wherein the first face comprises the polymer layer and the second face comprises the wax layer (see figures).
With regards to claims 17 and 18, Boswell teaches the multilayer water-dispersible article may be in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume, the pouch having an interior surface facing the interior pouch volume and an exterior surface opposing the interior surface, and the wax layer forms at least a portion of the interior or exterior surface of the pouch (0112-0113; 0042).
With regards to claim 19, the examiner takes the position that an intermediate region disposed between the polymer layer and the wax layer comprising a mixture of the water-soluble polymer and the wax is inherent to the invention of Boswell as said film is compositionally and structurally identical to the claimed film.
With regards to claim 20, Boswell teaches the polymer layer further comprises a plasticizer(0087).
With regards to claim 21, Boswell teaches the plasticizer may comprises glycerol, diglycerol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, a polyethylene glycol up to MW 400, sorbitol, 2-methyl- 1,3-propanediol, ethanolamines, trimethylolpropane (TMP), a polyether polyol, isomalt, maltitol, xylitol, erythritol, adonitol, dulcitol, pentaerythritol, mannitol, or a combination of any of the foregoing (0087).
With regards to claim 22, Boswell teaches the polymer layer or the wax layer further comprises a filler, a surfactant, an anti-block agent, an antioxidant, a slip agent, a dispersant, or a combination of any of the foregoing (0093).
With regards to claim 23, Boswell teaches the plasticizer, the filler, the surfactant, the anti-block agent, the antioxidant, the slip agent, the dispersant, or the combination of any of the foregoing is admixed with the water- soluble polymer (0093).
With regards to claim 28, Boswell teaches the use of paraffin wax. Said wax is known to have a melting point of 80-87C.
Claim(s) 2 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell et al (US 2018//0369859) in view of Wilhoit et al (US 2006/0068212), as applied to claims above, and further in view of van Slujis et al (US 2018/0265712).
Boswell in view of Wilhoit is relied upon as above, but neither reference teaches that the wax utilized as the anti-blocking additive may comprise paraffin wax, beeswax, or mixtures thereof. However, van Slujis teaches examples of waxes that are generally used as anti-blocking agents are polyethylene wax, paraffin wax, microcrystalline wax, beeswax, carnauba wax, montan wax, candelilla wax, synthetic wax or mixtures of the above mentioned waxes (0078). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize polyethylene wax, paraffin wax, microcrystalline wax, beeswax, carnauba wax, montan wax, candelilla wax, synthetic wax or mixtures as the anti-blocking additive disclosed in WIlhoit. The motivation for doing so would have been van Slujis teaches such waxes are generally used in the art as anti-blocking agents.
With regards to claim 27, Boswell in view of Wilhoit and van Slujis render obvious the use of beeswax and/or paraffin waxes-including blends thereof- but does not teach the claimed blend. However, the courts have "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." (MPEP 2144.06). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine said waxes in any relative amounts in order to make a composition having the same purpose.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell et al (US 2018//0369859) in view of Wilhoit et al (US 2006/0068212), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nii et al (US 2018/0029763).
Boswell in view of Wilhoit is relied upon as above, but does not teach he water-soluble polymer comprises an anionic group-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin modified with one or more in the group of itaconic acid, monomethyl maleate, aminopropyl sulfonate, maleic acid, maleic anhydride, n-vinylpyrrolidone, n-vinylcaprolactam, and a derivative of any of the foregoing. However, Nii teaches an anionic group modified PVOH (abstract), wherein the anionic group may be monomethyl maleate (0013). The anionic group-modified polyvinyl alcohol comprises at least 0.5 mol% anionic group modification (0045), such as from about 1.0 to about 4.0 mol% anionic group modification (0045). Nii teaches the anionic group modified PVOH has the advantage forming water soluble packages for holding harsh oxidizing chemicals, such as chlorinated compounds, and remain water soluble after being stored in contact with such oxidizing chemicals (0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an anionic group modified PVOH in the invention of Boswell. The motivation for doing so would have been to all the film to be used with harsh oxidizing chemicals.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boswell et al (US 2018//0369859) in view of Wilhoit et al (US 2006/0068212), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Echt et al (US2013/0225021)
Boswell in view of Wilhoit is relied upon as above, but does not teach the polyvinyl alcohol has a 4% aqueous viscosity at 20 °C of at least about 6 cP. However, Etch teaches PVOH with a 4% aqueous viscosity at 20 °C of at least about 8-75 cP (0055) are useful for making dispersions for barrier layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a PVOH with a 4% aqueous viscosity at 20 °C of at least about 6 cP because Echt teaches PVOH with such viscosities are useful as dispersions for making barrier layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787