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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3 and 5 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “a control water-soluble film that contains only no silica particles”. It is unclear how a water-soluble film contains only no silica particles. Is the control water-soluble film supposed to be free of silica particles? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “control water-soluble film that has the same thickness as the water-soluble film and contains only no silica particles”. It is unclear how a water-soluble film contains only no silica particles. Is the control water-soluble film supposed to be free of silica particles? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ieda, US 2020/0207530.
Ieda, US 2020/0207530, discloses a water-soluble film comprising a polyvinyl alcohol resin, and has, on a film surface, irregularities having a surface roughness of 0.3-1 microns and a maximum height of 3-9 microns (see abstract and paragraphs 14-15). It is further taught by Ieda that the water-soluble film contains 0.3-6% by weight of an inorganic particle, such as silica, that has an average particle size of 2-9 microns and an oil absorption of 240mL/100 grams or more (see paragraphs 48-57), that the polyvinyl alcohol resin contains unsaturated acid monomers, such as acrylic acid and maleic acid (i.e., an anionic group; see paragraphs 58-67), that the water-soluble film contains 3-25% by mass of a plasticizer (see paragraphs 96-100), that the water-soluble film is used to make detergent products (see paragraph 105), and that the blocking resistance of the water-soluble film is 0.3 N/15 mm or less (see paragraphs 137-140), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-13 and Tables 1-4. Although Ieda is silent with respect to the surface area of their silica particles, the examiner asserts that the silica particles disclosed in Ieda would inherently meet the surface area requirements of the instant invention, since the silica particles disclosed in Ieda have an average particle size of 2-9 microns, which is the proper size particle to achieve a surface area of 10-490 m2/g, absent a showing otherwise. Furthermore, although Ieda is silent with respect to the tensile strength, haze percentage, and pressure-resisting strength of their water-soluble film, the examiner asserts that the water-soluble films disclosed in Ieda would inherently meet the tensile strength, haze percentage, and pressure-resisting strength requirements of the instant invention, since products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, instant claims 1-6 are anticipated by Ieda, US 2020/0207530.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
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
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights