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 .
Claims 1-13, 16-20 are pending and are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1-13, 16-20 are amended.
Claims 14 and 15 are newly canceled.
No claims are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1-20 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s renumbering of the claims. Notably each current claim 2-13 is now is one number higher than in the previous iteration and office action.
Claims 1-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet article" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The sheet is previously referred to as “a sheet article”; by adding modifiers the scope of the claim is indeterminate because it is not immediately clear that the flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet article is the same as “a sheet article”.
Claims 2-13, 16-20 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy this deficiency.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection in the previous action of claim 1 over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12006410 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the instant claim.
The double patenting rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 6-8 over claims in copending Application No. 19015771 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the instant claim.
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.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 1a, 2-8, 10-12 —now claims 1-9, 11-13 — and claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120270029 by Glenn in view of US 20150218497 by Jalbert et al is repeated and amended herein to reflect applicant’s amendment.
Glenn describes a process for making a flexible porous dissolvable solid structure.
Regarding claim 1, Glenn describes:
a) preparing a wet premix comprising a water soluble polymer and surfactant (paragraph 22). Glenn describes the viscosity at 70C and ambient (25C) as from about 1000 cps to about 20,000 (paragraph 22, 29), therefore the viscosity at 40C is reasonably expected in the same range.
b) aerating the pre-mixture w/density of from about 0.15 to about 0.65 g/l (paragraph 22).
c) forming aerated pre-mix into a sheet (paragraph 22)
d) drying the sheet via “any suitable drying environment” (paragraph 42) at 100-150C (paragraph 46) for 3-90 minutes (paragraph 51)
Glenn is silent as to the instant drying “along a heating direction that forms a temperature gradient decreasing from the first side to the second side of the formed sheet, wherein the heating direction is substantially opposite to the gravitational direction for more than half of the drying time.”
Jalbert also describes a method for making a flexible (paragraph 96) dissolvable sheet (abstract).
Jalbert describes drying the sheet via applying the wet material to the outer surface of a rotatable cylinder (Fig.3, paragraph 120). This surface is heated on the bottom (“its outer surface 16 conductively heats the second non-shelf-stable solution 14 thereon” paragraph 120), creating the instant “temperature gradient…opposite to the gravitational direction”.
Notably Jalbert’s laundry detergent composition is similar to Glenn; both Glenn and Jalbert comprise surfactant (Glenn paragraph 65, 67; Jalbert paragraph 64), glycerin (Glenn paragraph 90; Jalbert paragraph 65), and polymer (Glenn paragraph 82-86; Jalbert paragraph 63) in addition to water (Glenn paragraph 25; Jalbert paragraph 67). Jalbert describes his process as simpler and more cost effective than prior methods (paragraph 27). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Jalbert’s drying method where “any suitable drying environment” suffices in Glenn because it is simpler and more cost effective than other methods.
Glenn describes:
i) A thickness of 0.5-10 mm (paragraph 114)
ii) A percent open cell content of between 80-100% (paragraph 128)
iii) An overall average pore size of 150-450 microns (paragraph 40)
- A top surface having a surface average pore diameter of 100-160 microns (paragraph 40)
- A uniformity of top middle and bottom regions (paragraph 55); perfect uniformity yields a ratio of Average pore Size as claimed of 1.0.
For the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Glenn describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Glenn describes a plasticizer (paragraph 89-97).
Regarding claim 3, Glenn describes a solid content of 15-55% (paragraph 26) and a viscosity at 60-99C of 1000-20000 cps (1-20Pas) (paragraph 28). Given that Glenn also describes an ambient temperature (25C) viscosity in the same range (paragraph 29), the viscosity at 40C is reasonably expected in the same range.
Regarding claim 4, Glenn describes heating before aeration and optionally during aeration between 40-99C (paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 5, Glenn describes a density of 0.15 to 00.65 g/mL (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 6, Glenn describes a continuous mixer which is also pressurized (paragraph 34). Glenn also describes planetary mixers, semicontinuous, non-pressurized, and batch mixers (paragraph 32). He describes rotor/stator mixers and high shear (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 7, Glenn describes a thickness of two or more sheets as 5-10 mm (paragraph 38). When faced with a mixture of two sheets, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that renders the thickness of an individual sheet 2.5-5mm, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 8, Glenn describes drying at 100-150C (paragraph 46) for 3-90 minutes (Glenn paragraph 51). Jalbert’s drying cylinder’s surface is the upper half of a circle, i.e. the heating direction is substantially opposite gravity for the entire heating surface (Jalbert Fig.3).
Regarding claim 9, Glenn describes drying at 100-150C (paragraph 46) and Jalbert describes heating the surface (paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 11, Jalbert describes an outer surface of a rotating drum (cylinder) (Fig.3, paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 12, Jalbert states that the size of the rotating cylinder may be based on desired throughput (paragraph 121), and exemplifies a 1.5m diameter cylinder (paragraph 123).
Regarding claim 13, Jalbert exemplifies a rotation speed of 4 rotations per hour, or 0.067 rpm (paragraph 123).
Regarding claim 16, in describing uniformity (paragraph 55) Glenn describes a ratio of 1.0.
Regarding claim 17, Glenn describes 15-40 wt% polymer (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 18-20, Glenn describes a uniformity of top, middle and bottom regions (paragraph 55); perfect uniformity yields an average ratio of 1.0 and a low (i.e. no more than 10%) standard deviation.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 1a, 2-9, — now claims 1-10 — and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120270029 by Glenn in view of CN 2226361 by Huang et al is repeated and amended herein to reflect applicant’s amendment.
Glenn is described above.
Regarding claim 1, Glenn describes:
a) preparing a wet premix comprising a water soluble polymer and surfactant (paragraph 22). Glenn describes the viscosity at 70C and ambient (25C) as from about 1000 cps to about 20,000 (paragraph 22, 29), therefore the viscosity at 40C is reasonably expected in the same range.
b) aerating the pre-mixture w/density of from about 0.15 to about 0.65 g/l (paragraph 22).
c) forming aerated pre-mix into a sheet (paragraph 22)
d) drying the sheet via “any suitable drying environment” (paragraph 42) at 100-150C (paragraph 46) for 3-90 minutes (paragraph 51)
Glenn is silent as to the instant drying “along a heating direction that forms a temperature gradient decreasing from the first side to the second side of the formed sheet, wherein the heating direction is substantially opposite to the gravitational direction for more than half of the drying time.”
Huang describes an electric hot plate.
Huang describes a plate that is widely used for drying (abstract) and states that the plate is simple, convenient and safe (abstract). The plate meets the instant heat direction and gradient. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Huang’s hot plate to dry Glenn’s material where “any suitable drying environment” is possible because Huang’s hot plate is simple, convenient and safe.
Glenn describes:
i) A thickness of 0.5-10 mm (paragraph 114)
ii) A percent open cell content of between 80-100% (paragraph 128)
iii) An overall average pore size of 150-450 microns (paragraph 40)
- A top surface having a surface average pore diameter of 100-160 microns (paragraph 40)
- A uniformity of top middle and bottom regions (paragraph 55); perfect uniformity yields a ratio of Average pore Size as claimed of 1.0.
For the overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Glenn describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Glenn describes a plasticizer (paragraph 89-97).
Regarding claim 3, Glenn describes a solid content of 15-55% (paragraph 26) and a viscosity at 60-99C of 1000-20000 cps (1-20Pas) (paragraph 28). Given that Glenn also describes an ambient temperature (25C) viscosity in the same range (paragraph 29), the viscosity at 40C is reasonably expected in the same range.
Regarding claim 4, Glenn describes heating before aeration and optionally during aeration between 40-99C (paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 5, Glenn describes a density of 0.15 to 00.65 g/mL (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 6, Glenn describes a continuous mixer which is also pressurized (paragraph 34). Glenn also describes planetary mixers, semicontinuous, non-pressurized, and batch mixers (paragraph 32). He describes rotor/stator mixers and high shear (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 7, Glenn describes a thickness of two or more sheets as 5-10 mm (paragraph 38). When faced with a mixture of two sheets, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that renders the thickness of an individual sheet 2.5-5mm, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 8, Glenn describes drying at 100-150C (paragraph 46) for 3-90 minutes (Glenn paragraph 51). Huang’s surface is a plate, i.e. the heating direction is substantially opposite gravity for the entire heating surface (Huang Figure).
Regarding claim 9, Glenn describes drying at 100-150C (paragraph 46) and Huang describes heating the surface (translation p.2 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 10, Huang’s hot plate is planar (Huang Fig. and description paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 16, in describing uniformity (paragraph 55) Glenn describes a ratio of 1.0.
Regarding claim 17, Glenn describes 15-40 wt% polymer (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 18-20, Glenn describes a uniformity of top, middle and bottom regions (paragraph 55); perfect uniformity yields an average ratio of 1.0 and a low (i.e. no more than 10%) standard deviation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.2 of Remarks submitted 8/20/25 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant cites the MPEP for anticipatory (102) rejections; however the rejections previously and currently set forth are obviousness (103) rejections.
Applicant’s argument p.3 and in Affidavit of 8/20/25 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant has submitted an affidavit of Robert Glenn, an instant inventor as well as an inventor of the primary applied prior art. First, applicant has an inherent self-interest that must be weighed along with the contents of the affidavit. Second, the affidavit refers to the office action of April 12, 2023, and itself is from 2023- this affidavit does not refer to the previous action, which was sent on 5/20/25. Again applicant, via affidavit, addresses the prior art Glenn as if it had been applied as a 102 reference, but it is set forth in 103 rejection in the most recent previous and current action. The Affidavit ignores the application of different ovens via Jalbert and Huang and states that the use of impingement oven would not achieve claimed results. This is not convincing because Jalbert and Huang describe the drying (ovens) now claimed.
Applicant’s argument p.4 first paragraph has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant asserts that applied prior art Glenn does not teach several aspects of claims 1, 18-20, but these aspects have been cited in Glenn and applicant does not set forth further reasoning for why Glenn is insufficient.
Applicant’s argument p.4 second paragraph has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states there is no reasonable expectation of success in using the heating elements of Jalbert or Huang to dry Glenn’s invention, however Glenn himself does not limit the heating. Glenn states drying the sheet can be done via “any suitable drying environment” (paragraph 42). A reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Since Glenn encourages any suitable drying environment and Jalbert and Huang describe the advantages of specific drying environments, the combination is obviousness to one of ordinary skill and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in the combination.
Regarding the final paragraphs of p.4, the Office has set forth reasoning and not “mere conclusory statements” for why Glenn in view of Jalbert or Huang renders obvious the current claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766