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 .
The grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1-14 are the same as those set forth in the previous Office. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Jacqueline Felder on 8/20/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-55 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
It is noted that the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using the appropriate identifier in a parenthetical expression. In the instant application, claims 15-54 should have the identifier “withdrawn”, see 37 C.F.R 1.121 (MPEP § 714).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz et al. (US 2019/0338221).
Regarding claim 1: Goetz is directed to a thermoformed article comprising a film thermoformed to be in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume ([0021]), the film comprising a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol ([0028]) and a plasticizer in an amount including 5-30 wt% ([0035] [0063]) (equivalent to 5 to 30 weight parts based on 100 parts total polyvinyl alcohol resin).
Wherein the thermoformed film in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume is characterized by a draw ratio of 1-7 ([0057]); a delayed release time of at least 30 seconds as measured by the liquid release time which are formed into a sealed packet and tested in accordance with the liquid release test ([0013]); and the article is characterized by a residue value of as low as about 10% as measured by the Dissolution Chamber Test ([0053]).
The residue value of Goetz includes “about 10%”. The term “about” permits some latitude as to what percentage amount may be construed as falling within the scope of “about”. According to MPEP 2144.05 (“Obviousness of Ranges”) and the case laws cited therein, “about 50 wt%” allows for values “slightly” different from 50 wt%. While a specific amount within the scope of “about” is not elucidated, it is the Examiner’s position that about 10% is within the scope of the claimed value of at most 9%, and therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a thermoformed article such that the residue value is at most 9% as determined by the Residue Test.
Regarding claim 2: A blend of a first and second PVOH copolymer is disclosed ([0043]). The first PVOH copolymer is present in a range of 20-40 wt% and second PVOH copolymer present in an amount of 60-90 wt% based on the total weight of PVOH copolymer (see claims 4 -6 of Goetz). The difference in PVOH copolymer have different pendent groups a2, wherein the anionic monomer is maleic anhydride or a metal salt of maleic anhydride (see claim 5 Goetz) (equivalent to a fist and second polyvinyl-co-maleate copolymers differ in degree of maleate modification).
Example 5 comprises a mixture of different PVOH-co-maleate polymers “C” and “D” (Table at [0249]). Polymer C comprises a monoalkyl maleate monomer unit at 1.75 mole % and Polymer D comprises a monoalkyl maleate monomer unit at 4.00 mole %.
Regarding claim 3: The anionic monomer includes maleic acid, monoalkyl maleate, dialkyl maleate, maleic anhydride, and combination thereof ([0037]).
Regarding claim 4: The anionic monomer units including maleate monomers is 1-3 mol% ([0040]).
Regarding claim 5: The PVOH copolymer has a viscosity in a range of 4-18 cP as determined by measuring a freshly made solution of 4% aqueous polyvinyl alcohol solution at 20 ˚C using a Brookfield LV type viscometer with a UL adapter, as described in British Standard EN ISO 15023-2:2006 Annex E Brookfield Test Method ([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 6: The anionic monomer includes maleic acid, monoalkyl maleate, dialkyl maleate, maleic anhydride, and combination thereof ([0037]).
Regarding claim 7: Example 5 comprises a mixture of different PVOH-co-maleate polymers “C” and “D” (Table at [0249]). Polymer C comprises a monoalkyl maleate monomer unit at 1.75 mole % and Polymer D comprises a monoalkyl maleate monomer unit at 4.00 mole % (equivalent to a second PVOH co maleate maleate monomer unit of 4 mol% based on the total moles of monomer units).
Regarding claim 8: The PVOH copolymer including the second PVOH copolymer has a viscosity in a range of 4-18 cP as determined by measuring a freshly made solution of 4% aqueous polyvinyl alcohol solution at 20 ˚C using a Brookfield LV type viscometer with a UL adapter, as described in British Standard EN ISO 15023-2:2006 Annex E Brookfield Test Method ([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 9: The plasticizer includes glycerin, diglycerin, sorbitol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, trimethylolpropane, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol ([0066]).
Regarding claim 10: Preferred plasticizers include sorbitol and glycerin ([0066]).
Regarding claim 11: The first PVOH copolymer is present in a range of 20-40 wt% and second PVOH copolymer present in an amount of 60-90 wt% based on the total weight of PVOH copolymer. The first and second PVOH-co-polymers are arbitrary, and therefore a PVOH copolymer in an amount of 60-90 wt% and the balance the remaining PVOH copolymer is disclosed.
Regarding claim 12: The mixture of claim 1 can further comprise a PVOH homopolymer or copolymer as disclosed the working examples [0249]).
Regarding claim 13: The mixture can further comprise the polymers of claim 13 ([0061]).
Regarding claim 14: The mixture can further comprise the components of claim 14 ([0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetz et al. (US 2019/0338221).
Regarding claim 55: Goetz is directed to a thermoformed article comprising a film thermoformed to be in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume ([0021]), the film comprising a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol ([0028]) and a plasticizer in an amount including 5-30 wt% ([0035] [0063]) (equivalent to 5 to 30 weight parts based on 100 parts total polyvinyl alcohol resin).
Wherein the thermoformed film in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume is characterized by a draw ratio of 1-7 ([0057]).
A blend of a first and second PVOH copolymer is disclosed ([0043]). The first PVOH copolymer is present in a range of 20-40 wt% and second PVOH copolymer present in an amount of 60-90 wt% based on the total weight of PVOH copolymer (see claims 4 -6 of Goetz). The difference in PVOH copolymer have different pendent groups a2, wherein the anionic monomer is maleic anhydride or a metal salt of maleic anhydride (see claim 5 Goetz) (equivalent to a fist and second polyvinyl-co-maleate copolymers differ in degree of maleate modification).
Example 5 comprises a mixture of different PVOH-co-maleate polymers “C” and “D” (Table at [0249]). Polymer C comprises a monoalkyl maleate monomer unit at 1.75 mole % and Polymer D comprises a monoalkyl maleate monomer unit at 4.00 mole %. The plasticizer is present in an amount of 10-45 wt% based on the total weight of the film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 11 Remarks) Goetz does not disclose or suggest the thermoformed film is in the form of a pouch, as claimed. While a container is mentioned, none of Examples 1-22 are thermoformed in the form of a pouch defining an interior pouch volume.
This argument is found persuasive since it is not necessary for Goetz to include an Example of a pouch. Further, Goetz literally recites “The film can be used to form a container (pouch) by any suitable process, including…thermoforming” at [0021].
Applicant (p. 12 Remarks) Goetz is directed to increasing crystallinity of water soluble film by heat drawing, which is distinct from thermoforming. Applicant points to differences in the present specification that explains differences in heat drawing and thermoforming.
This argument is not found persuasive since Goetz literally recites “The film can be used to form a container (pouch) by any suitable process, including…thermoforming” at [0021]. Goetz further discloses “A thermoformable film is one that can be shaped through the application of heat and a force. In general, the films of the disclosure are thermoformable.” at [0113].
Applicant argues (p. 12-13 Remarks) Applicant argues heat drawing and thermoforming are distinct processes for which draw ratios thereof would not be equivalent, Goetz generally discloses a draw ratio of 1 to 7. One skilled in the art would not select a draw ratio of 2.3 to 2.9 since it may be the case that not all films can be drawn in this claimed range. MPEP 2112
This argument is not found persuasive since it is not necessary for all films to be drawn in the claimed draw ratio. Further, it is well within the skill level of one skilled in the art to select a draw ratio of 2.3 to 2.9 from the broader range of 1 to 7.
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 ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights