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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 16-19 in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has failed to establish serious burden as there would be overlapping search among the groups. This is not found persuasive because the Groupings (i.e. Groups I-IV) do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the reasons as stated in the previous office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The Examiner requests a “Brief Description of the Drawing” and its header before “Detailed Description of the Invention” header on page 13 of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kochvar et al. (US 2002/0161088, already cited in PTO-892 dated 12/10/2025), hereinafter “Kochvar.”
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Kochvar teaches, in one example, a water-soluble film comprising a 50/50 mix, i.e., 1:1 ratio, of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) having a molecular weight (MW) of 6,000 and a degree of hydrolysis of 80%, and PVA having a MW of 78,000 and a degree of hydrolysis of 88%, and 20 wt% 1,4 CHDM (i.e., cyclohexanedimethanol, see [0037]), a principal solvent which reads on the plasticizer (see 3rd film in the Table on page 5).
Kochvar teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Kochvar anticipates the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochvar as applied to claims 1-3 and 6 above.
Regarding claims 4-5, 16 and 18, Kochvar teaches the features as discussed above. Kochvar, as discussed above, teaches 50/50 mix, i.e., 1:1 ratio, of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) having a molecular weight (MW) of 6,000 and PVA having a MW of 78,000 (see 3rd film in the Table on page 5). In addition, Kochvar teaches that plasticizers may be included in the film-forming composition to help provide flexibility to the film in the range from 0% to 40% by weight of the film-forming composition, and some examples include glycerine (also known as glycerol), poly(alkylene glycols), and alkane diols like 1,2-propanediol and 1,6 hexanediol (see [0044]). Kochvar also teaches that some materials have dual function serving both as a principal solvent and as plasticizer (see [0044]). In another example, Kochvar teaches Film 2 which comprises 18 wt% 1,6-hexanediol and 2 wt% glycerine (see [0050]). Kochvar, however, fails to specifically disclose the incorporation of 18 wt% 1,6-hexanediol and 2 wt% glycerine, say as the principal solvent and plasticizer in the example discussed above, i.e., 3rd film in the Table on page 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the 20 wt% 1,4 CHDM (i.e., cyclohexanedimethanol in the 3rd film in the Table on page 5, as discussed above, with
18 wt% 1,6-hexanediol and 2 wt% glycerine because these are the other preferred principal solvents acting as plasticizers as shown in Film 2 in [0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Kochvar, as discussed above, teaches that one of the plasticizers include 1,2-propanediol or 1,2 propylene glycol (see [0044]).
Regarding claim 19, Kochvar, as discussed above, teaches plasticizers like 1,6 hexanediol and glycerol (see [0044]), and one example includes 18 wt% 1,6 hexanediol and 2 wt% glycerine or glycerol, whose ratio is 18:2 or 9:1. Kochvar, however, fails to specifically disclose the ratio of the two plasticizers from 1:1 to 8:1.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap (8:1 vs 9:1) but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 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 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights