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 .
Response to Arguments
In the response to the office action dated 1/23/2026 the applicants argued following:
Error of the claim interpretation
Response: the examiner disagrees. PVOH homopolymer, as applicants pointed out is hydrolyzed or saponified polyvinyl acetate. PVOH can still be homopolymer while being in anionic form. While examiner agrees that using acrylates and the like is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, vinyl acetate itself can also be rendered anionic. As such ionic version of PVOH is not viewed as copolymer if vinyl acetate of vinyl acetic acid are part of the PVOH. This is the monomer disclosed in Labeque.
Labeque does not teach PVOH polymers as claimed. Specifically the polymers of Labeque are copolymers not homopolymers.
Response: consistent with the interpretation above and the concept of broadest reasonable interpretation the monomer that is utilized to render PVOH ionic includes vinyl acetic acid which is derivative of vinyl acetate already present in the PVOH [0015]. While not the most preferred embodiment, preference of specific monomers does not teach away from broader disclosure.
Labeque does not disclose matte to gloss COF
Response: The examiner agrees. Labeque does not disclose any guidance as to what either the gloss, the matte or haze properties would be. Consequently, this argument overcomes the prior art of Labeque.
In Lee in view of Childers, the examiner relied on Childers to provide ratio of the two polymers, however, Childers does not disclose viscosities of the polymers.
Response: The examiner disagrees with the arguments directed to rejection over Lee in view of Childers.
Lee teaches to PVOH polymers and their viscosities, and as it was established in the FOAM dated 10/27/2025 Lee does not disclosed ratios that can be utilized. The examiner relied on Childers to show how combination of the two polymers can be tailored to achieved the desired properties, for example, avoiding premature pouch rupture. As such the examiner did not rely on polymers of Childers or the viscosities of the two PVOH (not bodily incorporated). Having said that, applicants are welcome to review [0024, 0025 and 0056] of Childers which discloses first polymer having viscosity of 10-40 cP [0024] and second polymer has viscosity of 0-10 cP [025]. This signifies that first polymer of Childers has higher viscosity that the second polymer and the viscosities of the two are within the ranges disclosed in Lee.
It should also be noted that the examiner referred to teachings of Childers as guidance on how to properly select content of the two polymers and which properties for components such as pouches are important.
The PVOH of Childers is copolymer comprising anionic monomer unit, which will affect the properties of the film.
Response: Similarly to the argument 4, the examiner did not bodily incorporate the polymers of Childers into teachings of Lee. The grounds of rejection clearly state that it would have been obvious to utilize PVOH polymers (lee’s primary reference) to tailor the properties of water soluble film by adjusting the content of the PVOH. Childers teaches these properties in [0004-0005], achieving properties balance [0051-0052] via use of polymer blends. The grounds of rejection never stated that polymers of Childers are to be used in Lee.
Office inherency argument for the claimed matte-to-gloss COF and haze properties are improper. Lee discloses gloss-to-gloss COF while instant claims requires gloss-to-matte and assertion that gloss-to-matte COF is “slightly lower” is speculative and does not establish that Lee’s composition would necessarily exhibit claimed properties.
Response: with respect to assertion and speculation of G-G COF or M-G COF, the examiner would like to refer the applicants to [0025] of Lee, having said that Lee discloses G-M COF is slightly lower, which is not the same as M-G COF. M-G COF would be slightly higher, because matte COF would be higher than gloss COF. However, the examiner maintains the position that the M-G COF will be within claimed range for following reasons:
Lee tied the COF to the content of starch and amylose. With starch loading of 2-5 parts, the G-G COF is less than 1 [0036], the content of starch is within claimed range. Low G-G COF further has better anti-stick properties [0039]. See also [0215] for more specific values of G-G COF. If, G-G COF is less than 1 then M-G COF is expected to be 1 or higher, encompassing the claimed range. If G-G COF is 0.6, the M-G COF is expected to be 0.6 or higher. This is further reflected in the instant claims for a film that has G-G COF of 0.4 or 0.6 (range 0.05-0.6) (also specifically disclosed in Lee) for which M-G COF is 0.5-1.0 or less especially when measure of friction in both instant invention [0142] and Lee [0174] is tested according to the same standard ASTM D1894
It appears that applicants invention is actually focused on content of starch that is lower than 2%, specifically, Table 1, film 1; Table 4, films 4-8, 14 and 15. Other films utilize single polymers or starch content higher than 6 wt.% or both. In the inventive examples 4-8 starch is utilized in amount of 0.63, which would be outside of range taught by Lee.
In any event, the examiner would like to propose an interview to discuss possible allowable subject matter. Currently the rejection of Lee in view of Childers is maintained and it is incorporated here by reference.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2018/0118906) in view of Childers (US 2019/0338090).
With respect to claims 1-8, 17, 18 and 21, Lee discloses composition for a laundry pouch, comprising blend of PVOH polymers, starch and plasticizer. Examples 6-45 as defined in table on page 21 disclose starch utilized in amount of 2-5 (CLAIM 45) parts, plasticizer utilized in amount of 1-45 parts (claim 48), which encompasses instantly claimed amounts. With respect to PVOH, Lee discloses following polymers utilized in the examples:
PNG
media_image1.png
286
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PVOH E, F, G and H meet the viscosity of second PVOH homopolymer; PVOH I, J, and K meet the viscosity of first PVOH polymer along with the degrees of hydrolysis that meets instant claim 5. For viscosities also see [0062]. As such examples 21, 39 meet the required blend of the instant invention, while addition of the third PVOH copolymer is encompassed by the term comprising. Total content of PVOH polymers is in a range of 20-95 parts. The above discussion further meets the requirement of instant claims 2-5, 12 and 13.
Lee further states that the use of antiblocking agents generally has a detrimental effect on the mechanical properties of the resulting films. In particular tensile strength of the water-soluble films generally decreases resulting in difficulty in processing films into single dose pouches. Alternative solutions which utilize powders result in wasted powder and machine down time [0004-0005].
Lee’s solution to this is use of PVOH blends along with plasticizer and starch. It is also well established in the art that low molecular polymers, including PVOH, have lower viscosity than higher molecular weight [0062]. Wherein the viscosity of the overall blend is in a range of 4-30 cP [0062]. The fact that the examples show blends of the PVOH polymers means that Lee had to tailor the content of each in order to arrive at proper overall viscosity, content of the PVOH in order to obtain the required tensile properties of the water soluble film. The tensile strength of the composition disclosed by Lee is in a range of 45-60 MPa [0021].
The guidance with respect to the content of each PVOH is well documented, for example in the teachings of Labeque above or Childers.
Childers discloses composition for water soluble film and pouch for washing detergents. The composition comprises mixture of PVOH, plasticizer and starch. The content of the PVOH is in a range of 20-95 wt.% [0010], which is the same range as that of Lee.
The PVOH of Childers comprises combination of two PVOH polymers. The PVOH of Childers include first and second PVOH differing by viscosity. First PVOH is utilized in the amount of 10-40 parts having lower viscosity and second PVOH having higher viscosity is utilized in amount of 60-90 parts meeting the requirements of instant claims 1 and 2 [0011], wherein viscosities taught in Childers overlap with the viscosities of LEE for both high viscosity PVOH and low viscosity of Lee. Childers pick the content of the PVOH polymers in the blend to balance properties such as stiffness vs. flexibility, strength, modulus and the like [0040], wherein blend can comprise multiple homopolymers and copolymers of PVOH [0042].
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed, to utilize the content of each PVOH to tailor the properties of the water soluble film such that the film does not rapture too soon and releases the contents of the pound such that laundry is clean at the end of the cycle.
With respect to the properties of haze and COF, Lee does not specifically disclose matte to gloss COF or Haze at 100% strain, however these properties are viewed as obvious for following reasons:
Lee discloses gloss to gloss COF or 5 or less (claim 76) and several examples show gloss to gloss COF of less than 1, which encompasses instant claim 7. As such Lee meets the COF for gloss to as required by instant claims 1 and 6. See response for arguments above for detailed discussion.
With respect to haze value, the value depends not only on the components of the composition, and their content but also thickness of the film. The film according to lee is 76 microns, which is the same thickness as that of the instant invention. The method of depositing the film is by casting which also meets the requirement of claim 19. Consequently if the same components are utilized in the same amount into a film having the same thickness using the same method resulting in the overlapping gloss to gloss COF, the haze value of the film is also expected to be in the same range as that of instant claims 1 and 8.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, while Lee does not specifically disclose elongation at break but he does teach that the particle size of starch can influence both tensile strength and elongation of the resulting film. Per [0092] the tensile strength of the film of Lee is in a range of 45-60 MPa. It is well established in the art that tensile strength and elongation at break are inversely proportional to one another. Since the composition utilize the same polymers having the same viscosities, along with the content of PVOH polymers, starch and plasticizers within the same range, the elongation at break will be in be if not in the same range then overlapping to a large extent.
With respect to claim 11, it is well settled in the art that the blocking force is defined as a specific amount of unwanted adhesive force that causes layers to stick together due to PCOH hydrophilic nature. The key factor is surface smoothness, the smoother the film the greater the potential for contact bonding. Lee forms pouches with reduced tendency to stick together. Gloss to gloss COF defines the films relation with respect to sticking to the surface on which the film is deposited while gloss to matte COF defines the tendency of the two films sticking together. Since both these properties are met by Lee, the blocking force will be within the same range.
Note: limitations of claims 9-11 combined with claim 1 meet the limitations of claim 15.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, as it was mentioned above the content of the plasticizer is in a range of 1-40 parts (claim 48), wherein plasticizers are selected from sorbitol, glycerol, 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol and the like (claims 49 and 50).
With respect to claim 20, the GU value at an angle of 60oC is influenced by surface morphology such as gloss or matte, composition, composition and drying conditions. As it was shown above, the composition of Lee has gloss to gloss and gloss to matte COF within the same range. The composition of Lee is made of the same components within the same range, and the process with which the film is case is the same in Lee as it is in the instant invention. Consequently the GU value will be within the same range as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 February 27, 2026