DETAILED ACTION
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 in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious burden of search across the groups. This is not found persuasive because a different consideration is need for a combination on its own and a method of using a composition. In the instant case there are many foams utilized in the makeup and cosmetic industry that utilize a similar composition but would not then apply the cosmetic to a web int eh middle of a paper production method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 requires the surfactant to be a sodium alkyl sulfate. This term is not utilized in the instant specification. The instant specification utilizes the term sodium lauryl sulfate [0056]. While a Sodium lauryl sulfate is a sodium alkyl sulfate it does not provide support for the claim. As claim 4 was present as originally filed its inclusion is not new matter and therefore it is the instant specification that is objected to for not having support instead of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriegl et al, US Patent Publication 2023/0124547 in view of Neagu et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0039713.
Regarding claim 1, Kriegl teaches a method of making a paper product [0028] comprising, providing a foam [0023] of a gas (air [0023 and 0050]), water [0038], an additive [0040-0046], and surfactants that include a list of polysorbate and SDS or a combination of surfactants [0037] and applying the foam to a web and making a final product [0023 and 0054-0056].
Kriegl teaches a wide collection of additives that can be included in the foam, but they do not explicitly address a dry strength agent by name.
In the same field of endeavor of making a paper product with the addition of a surfactant based foam, Neagu is provided. Neagu teaches the method of making a sheet shaped cellulose product (see abstract) that includes a foam [0054-0059] that includes surfactants [0055] that can be either SDS [0056] or Tweens (reads on polysorbate nonionic [0057]) with air and water [0044] and an additive that is a dry strength agent [0059-0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the dry strength agent as taught by Neagu as the additive in the Kriegl reference as Neagu teaches that the foam formed cellulose product will have improved internal bond strength [0087].
Regarding claims 2-3, Kriegl and Neagu remain as applied above and Neagu further teaches that a cationic acrylamide containing polymer is utilized for the dry strength agent [0060].
Regarding claims 4-5, Neagu remains as applied as above and teaches that Sodium lauryl suphate and sodium dodecyl sulphate are interchangeable surfactants for an anionic surfactant [0056].
Additionally, regarding claim 5, Kriegl further teaches the use of SDS as the surfactant See claim 7).
Regarding claims 7-8, Kriegl teaches that the surfactants can be utilized in combination with each other but does not provide specific ratios of the combinations.
Under the guidance of KSR and the rationales provided in the MPEP of obvious to try and obviousness of ranges, when it comes to finding an optimal ratio of composition of the surfactants, the Examiner states that a 1:1 ratio of the two surfactants would be an obvious starting place for the optimization. A 1:1 ratio reads on the claimed ranges of all cited surfactant ratios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize routine optimization to select the amount of each surfactant to utilizes when the reference teaches a combination of surfactants can be used together especially when the ration of 1:1 is within the narrowest preferred claimed range.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriegl et al, US Patent Publication 2023/0124547 in view of Neagu et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0039713 in further view of Ling et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0168194.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, both references teach the use of polysorbates as the nonionic surfactant, but neighed mentions the specific use of polysorbate 20.
In the same field of endeavor of making a foam (mousse foam [0011]) made up of multiple surfactants and applying to a paper substrate [0619] Ling is presented as a teaching a preferred polysorbate is polysorbate-20 [0621].
It would have been obvious to utilize the conventional known polysorbate-20 as shown by Ling in the Kriegl method that simply teaches a generic polysorbate as a simple substitution of one known element for another with a high expectation of success.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kriegl teaches that the surfactants can be utilized in combination with each other but does not provide specific ratios of the combinations.
Under the guidance of KSR and the rationales provided in the MPEP of obvious to try and obviousness of ranges, when it comes to finding an optimal ratio of composition of the surfactants, the Examiner states that a 1:1 ratio of the two surfactants would be an obvious starting place for the optimization. A 1:1 ratio reads on the claimed ranges of all cited surfactant ratios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize routine optimization to select the amount of each surfactant to utilizes when the reference teaches a combination of surfactants can be used together especially when the ration of 1:1 is within the narrowest preferred claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights