DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed February 2, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 17. Claims 2 and 16 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, 15, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20251105.
The rejection of claims 2 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the PVA has an average molecular weight ranging from about 80,000 Daltons to about 150,000 Daltons” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks. Specifically, claims 2 and 16 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 3 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the trademarks/trade names “PVA BP-05” and “PVA BP-17” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “about 7.8 wt% to about 8.2 wt% of the water” in claim 9 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the upper limitation of “about 7.7 wt% of said glycerin” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “about 7.8 wt% to about 8.2 wt% of the water” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-13, 15, 18, 20-23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen et al, WO 2020/079177, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, 15, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the instant specification does not provide support for the newly added limitation “polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) ranging from about 80,000 Daltons to about 150,000 Daltons” that is recited in independent claims 1 and 15. It is noted by the examiner that nowhere in the instant specification is the molecular weight referred to as the weight average molecular weight. Furthermore, applicant’s remarks dated February 2, 2026 do not indicate where support for this amendment can be found in the instant specification. Claims 3-4, 7-13, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claims 1 and 15. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, 15, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “and a degree of hydrolysis ranging from about 80% to about 90%” in independent claims 1 and 15. This limitation renders the claims vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the degree of hydrolysis refers to “weight percent hydrolysis” or “mole percent hydrolysis” of the polyvinyl alcohol. Claims 3-4, 7-13, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claims 1 and 15. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for being dependent upon a cancelled claim (i.e., claim 16). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, 15, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights