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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 3, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7 and 9 – 21, 23 and 25 – 30 are pending. Claims 2, 5, 8, 22 and 24 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 13 – 15, 17 – 19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ramaratnam teaches a dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1; Paragraph [0011]) comprising a woven or non-woven web (Paragraphs [0036] and [0055]) which contains fibers (Abstract) and soluble material (Paragraph [0013]), a water soluble resin impregnating and bonded to the fibers (Paragraph [0024] – polyacrylamide resins), an oil coated on or impregnating the woven on non-woven fibers (Paragraph [0048] – steryl oil) and wherein the dissolvable wipe is coated or impregnated with a cleaning substance (Paragraph [0026]).
Ramaratnam does not explicitly teach the woven or non-woven, water soluble web which contains cross-laid, water soluble fibers.
Tang, however, teaches the woven or non-woven web, water soluble web (Paragraph [0006]), which contains cross-laid, water soluble fibers (Paragraph [0035] – cross-lapped).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to explicitly include the woven or non-woven, water soluble web which contains cross-laid, water soluble fibers, as taught by Tang, to provide a dissolvable wipe that helps in reducing the quantity of solid waste produced by a consumer, thus environmentally friendly.
Regarding Claim 3, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1), in which the wipe (1) is made of non-woven, wet laid, synthetic yarn (Paragraph [0060]).
Ramaratnam does not explicitly teach cross-laid water soluble fibers.
Tang, however, teaches cross laid water soluble fibers (Paragraphs [0006] and [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 wipe of Ramaratnam to explicitly include cross-laid water soluble fibers, as taught by Tang, to provide a dissolvable wipe that helps in reducing the quantity of solid waste produced by a consumer, thus environmentally friendly.
Regarding Claim 4, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which of the material is a Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) material (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which the wet wipe (1) has a rhomboid, rectangular or square shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which the wet wipe (1) is suitable to be dispensed from a sealed pack (Paragraph [0103]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which the dissolvable wipe has a soft finish or a mildly abrasive finish (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which the surface of the wipe (1) comprises grip points (corners of wipe, 1 can be grips, thus the surface has grip points).
Regarding Claim 15, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam teaches the wipe wherein additives are added (Paragraph [0026]), however, the reference does not explicitly teach the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is for a medical application, including the removal of adhesive residue. "As to the wipe is for a medical application, including the removal of adhesive residue”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2111.02 (II). However, because the wipes of Ramaratnam is structurally similar to that instantly claimed and includes additives, the wipes appears capable of being operated as claimed with similar if not identical claimed characteristics."
Regarding Claim 17, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam, as modified, does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the dimension of the wipe is 5" x 5" for medical applications and 7" x 8" for personal and industrial applications, 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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the dissolvable wipe in which the dimension of the wipe is 5" x 5" for medical applications and 7" x 8" for personal and industrial applications, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is in a glove form, 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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is in a glove form, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe (wipe, 1) in which the wipe stability is adapted to meet industry standard shelf life criteria (Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 20 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam teaches additives added to the wipe but fails to teach an exact amount and further does not explicitly teach approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, 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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the dissolvable wipe in which approximately 3ml of each additive is required for each wipe, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in size/amount is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 23, Ramaratnam, as modified teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach cross-laid water soluble fibers.
Tang, however, teaches cross-laid water soluble fibers (Paragraph [0006] and [0035] – cross-lapped).
Ramaratnam as modified by Tang does not explicitly teach the wipe containing reduced levels of fibrous product with a GSM of around 25 GSM, 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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the wipe containing reduced levels of fibrous product with a GSM of around 25 GSM, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). This reduction would allow to provide a wipe that has increased breathability, lighter weight, and potentially lower cost.
Claims 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Ouellette et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0227203 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach the wipe in which the material of the wet wipe includes a number of separate pieces of standard (non dissolvable) wet wipe material, such as woven or non-woven synthetic fibres, which are stitched together or joined together by intermingling with soluble thread using needling or joined together with soluble adhesive.
Ouellette, however, teaches the wipe in which the dissolvable wipe comprises a patchwork comprising separate pieces of standard (non dissolvable) wet wipe material (base layer 20 and secondary layer, 30; Abstract) which are stitched together or joined together with soluble thread or joined together with a soluble adhesive (Paragraph [0020]).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the material of the wet wipe includes a number of separate pieces of standard (non dissolvable) wet wipe material, such as woven or non-woven synthetic fibres, which are stitched together or joined together by intermingling with soluble thread using needling or joined together with soluble adhesive to create a patchwork, as taught by Ouellette, to provide a wipe that has both wet strength and soft bulk so as to appear to a consumer to have sufficient durability and bulkiness for using in cleaning a variety of surfaces.
Regarding Claim 10, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam, as modified, does not teach the wipe dissolvable wipe in which the pieces in this patchwork arrangement can be of any suitable rhomboid shape.
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the pieces in this patchwork arrangement can be of any suitable rhomboid shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/size of a component. A change in shape/size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04]. This modification would be beneficial in areas such as corners to clean trapped materials.
Regarding Claim 11, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 10 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam, as modified, does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the pieces in the patchwork are square shape.
Ouellette however, teaches the dissolvable wipe in which the pieces (20, 30) in the patchwork are square shape (Fig. 1).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the dissolvable wipe in which the pieces are squares, as taught by Ouellet, to provide a wipe that has both wet strength and soft bulk so as to appear to a consumer to have sufficient durability and bulkiness for using in cleaning a variety of surfaces.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Policicchio et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0042439 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach the wipe in which the oil is selected from the group consisting of almond oil, mineral oil, or baby oil.
Policicchio, however, teaches the wipe (30) in which the oil is selected from the group consisting of almond oil, mineral oil, -or baby oil (Paragraph [0037]).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the wipe in which the oil is selected from the group consisting of almond oil, mineral oil, or baby oil, as taught by Policicchio, to provide a sheet for cleaning hard surfaces which can efficaciously capture debris without leaving residue.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Grafe et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0092185 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol effective for use for electrical equipment cleaning and the maintenance of clean rooms.
Grafe, however, teaches the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol (Paragraph [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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the cleaning substance comprises an alcohol, as taught by Grafe, to provide a wipe that disinfecting capabilities, thus improving the cleaning experience.
Regarding the limitation “effective for use for electrical equipment cleaning and the maintenance of clean rooms” it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2111.02 (II). However, because the wipes of Ramaratnam in view of Grafe is structurally similar to that instantly claimed and includes additives, the wipes appears capable of being operated as claimed with similar if not identical claimed characteristics." One would look to modify Ramaratnam with Grafe to further include due to the important characteristics of the wipe, that being the flexibility of the wipe and the flexibility of the fine fiber layer. While the polymers of the invention display flexural properties similar to unfilled polymer, the small fiber diameter gives the fiber on the wipe a unique flexibility and improved cleaning/polishing character.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Hill et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0159063 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach the dissolvable wipe in which the cleaning substance is selected from a group consisting of C9 - C12 Iso Paraffin, Triticum Vulgare, Lavandula Angustifolia, Melaleuca Alternifolia, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe) Leaf Extract, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Linalool and Limonene.
Hill, however, teaches the wipe in which the cleaning substance is selected from a group consisting of C9 - C12 Iso Paraffin, Triticum Vulgare, Lavandula Angustifolia, Melaleuca Alternifolia, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe) Leaf Extract, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Linalool and Limonene (Paragraph [0139]).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the cleaning substance is selected from a group consisting of C9 - C12 Iso Paraffin, Triticum Vulgare, Lavandula Angustifolia, Melaleuca Alternifolia, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe) Leaf Extract, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Linalool and Limonene, as taught by Hill, to provide a sheet that has exfoliating and skin brightening properties, thus improving the conditions of a user’s skin.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Aldridge et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0024699 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 22 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not teach the wipe is a napped wipe.
Aldridge, however, teaches the wipe is a napped wipe (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 wipe of Ramaratnam to further include the wipe is subject to napping during production to soften the material, as taught by Aldridge, to provide the article to have a high surface quality.
Claims 26 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Aubrun-Sonneville et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0134304 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not explicitly teach the dissolvable in which the material of the wipe is softened during manufacturing by using Calendaring rollers, however, regarding the limitation “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Regarding Claim 27, Ramaratnam, as modified, teaches the dissolvable wipe of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam does not explicitly teach the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is impregnated with various natural oils and chemicals.
Aubrun-Sonneville teaches the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is impregnated with various natural oils and chemicals (Paragraph [0098]).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to explicitly include the dissolvable wipe in which the wipe is impregnated with various natural oils and chemicals, as taught by Aubrun-Sonneville, to provide a dissolvable wipe that helps in reducing the quantity of solid waste produced by a consumer, thus environmentally friendly.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0330029 A1) in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Naoto (JP 200300463 A) – see attached Machine translation.
Regarding Claim 28, Ramaratnam, as modified by Tang, teaches the cross-laid, water soluble fibers of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ramaratnam, as modified, does not teach a water soluble resin is applied onto the fibers.
Naoto, however, teaches a water soluble resin is applied onto the fibers (Paragraph [0001]).
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 wipe of Ramaratnam to explicitly include a water soluble resin is applied onto the fibers, as taught by Naoto, to increase the strength of the water-disintegrable nonwoven fabric.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto (JP 200300463 A) – see attached Machine translation in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1)
Regarding Independent Claim 29, Naoto teaches a method of making dissolvable wipes (Fig. 3), comprising the steps of: a) forming a web comprising water soluble fibers (Paragraph [0019]); impregnating the web with a water soluble resin (Paragraph [0010]); and cutting the impregnated web to provide the wipes (2; Figs. 1 and 2).
Naoto does not explicitly teach the fibers are cross-laid.
Tang, however, teaches the water soluble web (Paragraph [0006]), which contains cross-laid, water soluble fibers (Paragraph [0035] – cross-lapped).
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 wipe of Naoto to explicitly include the fibers are cross-laid, as taught by Tang, to provide a dissolvable wipe that helps in reducing the quantity of solid waste produced by a consumer, thus environmentally friendly.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto (JP 200300463 A) – see attached Machine translation in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0312241 A1) and Aldridge et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0024699 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, Naoto as modified by Tang teaches the cross-laid, water soluble fibers of claim 29 as discussed above.
Naoto as modified does not teach a step comprises napping
Aldridge, however, teaches the wipe is a napped wipe (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 wipe of Naoto to further include the wipe is subject to napping during production to soften the material, as taught by Aldridge, to provide the article to have a high surface quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated November 3, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Tang.
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