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 Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/08/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 21 are pending. Claim 9 is canceled, claim 21 is new, and claim 1 and 8 are currently amended.
The rejections of claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zeese, claim 3 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zeese in view of Patel, claim 9 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zeese in view of Xu further in view of Patel, claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Garcia as evidenced by Heinrich have been withdrawn because of the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-13 have been considered but are moot because of amendments to claim 1 and newly added claim 21.
The Applicant argues the general teachings of Zeese suggest the use of PVA in the unit dose article (see Remarks page 3). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is listed as a suitable polymer for the fiber composition (see [0008]), it is not required and the invention of Zeese can be formulated free of PVA. Other suitable polymers for use in the water-soluble fibers are polyacrylates, pyrrolidone, polyethyleneimine, pullulan, natural polymers, polyalkylene oxides, polyacrylamides, polyacrylic acids, among others (see [0041]).
Acknowledge is receipt of the affidavit Declaration under 37 C.F.R 1.132 on 07/08/2026. The affidavit has been considered and under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/08/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 9 based upon the rejection under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Zeese in view of Xu further in view of Patel as set forth in the last Office action because the facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue.
In the affidavit, the Applicant argues to “not look to references that include PVA in any way to arrive at the dissolvable sheet that is PVA-free as disclosed in claim 1” (see Declaration 07/08/2026, page 3). The examiner asserts however, the general teachings of Zeese, Xu, and Patel do not require PVA and therefore, suggest the invention of the PVA-free film in the instant claim. Zeese teaches the use of polymers that are not PVA in the non-woven webs such as pullulan, natural polymers, and pyrrolidone (see [0041]); Xu teaches the use of polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyalkylene oxide, starches, pullulan, gelatin, among others as suitable alternatives polymers to PVA (see claim 7); and Patel teaches the use of polyvinyl acetate in the film with no mention of PVA (see [0019]). The examiner respectfully asserts the general teachings of Zeese, Xu, and Patel can be used in combination to arrive at the inventive composition of claim.
The Applicant also argues their invention found “the claimed range of each component together are within critical range for effectiveness without unduly increasing the cost” in claim 9, citing results in Appendix A (see Declaration 07/08/2026, page 3). The arguments are found to be persuasive and the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant also argues “there is nothing in the Zeese disclosure that would lead a person of ordinary skill to select four or more enzymes from the enzyme group in the claims” (see Declaration 07/08/2026, page 3). The examiner asserts the general teachings of Zeese suggest the enzyme blend of claim 21. Zeese teaches the use of one or more enzymes such as protease, amylase, mannanases, lipase, among others in the nonwoven web (see [0065]-[0066]). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably formulate a non-woven web with mutliple enzymes taught by Zeese for the benefit of prolonged release of a liquid composition (see [0021]).
Upon further examination, new grounds of rejection are made below.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 10-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "wherein the dissolvable sheet comprises" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the dissolvable sheet itself comprises of the listed components or the active ingredient composition in the dissolvable sheet comprises of the listed components.
Claims 2-8, and 10-13, depending from claim 1, inherit this rejection.
Regarding claims 3-4, the phrase "the cellulose derivative" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are limiting the cellulose derivative of the non-woven web in line 2 or the cellulose derivative in line 9 of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) after the phrase “the active ingredient composition comprise” are further limiting the active ingredient composition in line 2 of independent claim 1 or requiring an additional active ingredient further comprising of a surfactant, enzyme blend, starch, dispersion aid, fragrance, or preservative.
Claim 6, depending from claim 5, inherits this rejection.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear whether the glycerin dispersion aid refers to the glycerin of the active ingredient composition in line 9 of independent claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the dispersion aid in claim 9. Additionally, claim 1 does not teach a dispersion aid.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) after the phrase “the enzyme blend comprising” are further limiting the enzyme blend of the active ingredient composition in line 10 of independent claim 1 or requiring an additional enzyme blend.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the nanocellulose fiber is naturally derived from softwood…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a nanocellulose substrate is not recited in claim 1. Claim 13 should depend from claim 2 to further limit the nanocellulose substrate because claim 2 is where the nanocellulose is first taught.
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.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeese et. al (US20220403303A1) hereinafter Zeese.
Zeese teaches a unit dose article comprising a non-woven web and a water-soluble film (see Abstract). With regards to claim 21, Zeese teaches “a nonwoven web in the form of a pouch defining a second interior pouch volume encompassing the water-soluble film” where “the nonwoven webs of the disclosure are generally sheet-like structures” (see [0005]; see also [0163]). Celluloses, methylcelluloses, carboxymethylcelluloses and salts thereof (which includes NaCMC), ethylcelluloses, hydroxyethyl celluloses, and hydroxypropyl methylcelluloses can be used in the fiber of the film (see [0041]). The active ingredient in the nonwoven film can be an enzyme (see [0062]). Zeese also teaches the use of one or more enzymes such as protease, amylase, mannanases, lipase, among others in the nonwoven web (see [0065]-[0066]). Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is listed as a suitable polymer for the fiber composition, but it is not required and need not be present in the invention. Zeese also teaches the auxiliary ingredients can be sprayed into the web with a spray gun (see [0095]-[0096]).
Although Zeese does not disclose a cellulose fiber substrate, a cellulose derivative, and the enzyme blend active in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these elements into a nonwoven web water-soluble sheet taught by Zeese. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have done so for the benefit of improved stability in humid environments, increased functionality, and prolonged release of a liquid composition while maintaining mechanical integrity of the article for a duration of use (see [0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-8, and 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: specifically, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest in general a PVA free dissolvable sheet with a non-woven web comprising of an active ingredient which further comprises 25-55 wt% cellulose, 10-45 wt% nonionic surfactant, 1-10 wt% anionic surfactant, 1-15 wt% cellulose derivative, 1-10 wt% glycerin, 0.1-8 wt% enzyme blend, 0.5-8 wt% starch, 0.01-0.5 wt% preservative, and 1-20 wt% water of the total dissolvable sheet, as required by applicant in claim 1.
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 SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights