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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed 5/22/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s species election without traverse of i) alginate (biopolymer composition ingredient) ii) potassium chloride (monovalent salt) iii) cocamidopropyl betaine (surfactant) iv) citric acid (pH adjustment agent) and v) phenoxyethanol (preservative) in the reply 5/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/2026.
Claims 1-15 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, e.g. the biopolymer composition ingredient is alginate, the monovalent salt is potassium chloride, the surfactant is cocamidopropyl betaine, the pH adjustment agent is citric acid, and the preservative is phenoxyethanol.
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 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Paleske (US20030119397A1, published 6/26/2003) in view of Fischer (US20190359735A1, published 1/3/2023) and Costache (US20220287944A1, published 9/15/2022).
Von Paleske teaches a planar multi-ply product that includes two or more plies of fibrous material, wherein at least two plies are attached via an adhesive agent, wherein the adhesive agent comprises a gelatinous compound (abstract). Von Paleske teaches that this gelatinous compound may be swollen in water, and is therefore also known as a hydrogel (par. [0033]). Further, the gelatinous compound may be selected from the group consisting of gelatine, montmorillonite, bentonite, pectins, phycocolloids, agar, alginate, carrageen (aka carrageenan), phyllophorane, furellaran, furcellaran, and silica gel, or combinations thereof (par. [0025] and claim 11). Von Paleske teaches that the two plies are tissue products, paper products, and non-woven material products (par. [0019]), such as toilet paper, especially when having 2 to 4 plies in the final product (par. [0064]). These kinds of materials along with the gelatinous compound are designed to disperse upon immersion in water (par. [0013]). Von Paleske teaches that their claimed invention is essentially a minimum of two layers of non-woven material such as tissue paper or toilet paper attached to each other with said gelatinous compound (claim 1). Von Paleske continues to state that the adhesive agent additionally comprises a swelling agent, wherein the swelling agent is water ( par. [0032] and claims 3-4).
However, Von Paleske does not teach the biopolymer hydrogel comprising kappa-carrageenan specifically. Further, Von Paleske does not teach the inclusion of a salt, surfactant, pH adjustment agent, preservative, or fragrance.
This is made up for by the teachings of Fischer and Costache.
Fischer teaches a water-soluble and/or water-swellable hybrid polymer, which can also be termed a hydrogel. Fischer teaches that the composition may be part of a cosmetic composition, including cleansing wipes (par. [0171]). The polymer comprises a polysaccharide polymer selected from a group including carrageenan and alginate, as well as combinations thereof. Fischer teaches that this polymer may be present in the composition from 5 wt% to 95 wt% (claim 1). Fischer’s composition in at least one embodiment also comprises crosslinker units that will crosslink the hydrogel (par. [0089]). Fischer continues to state that the composition also includes an aqueous, alcoholic, or aqueous-alcoholic carrier, which includes water (par. [0176]). One embodiment comprises water alone, which Fischer says is highly useful in the composition as it is economically ideal and highly acceptable as a carrier (par. [0173]). Also present in the composition in at least one embodiment is a surfactant system that comprises cocamidopropyl betaine (par. [0212]). Also present in at least one embodiment is potassium chloride, in an amount ranging from 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% (par. [0269]). In at least one embodiment, citric acid is also present in combination with the surfactant (par. [0230]) or as an anti-oxidant (par. [0267]). In at least one embodiment, the composition also comprises a preservative, which may be selected from a group including phenoxyethanol (par. [0261]).
Costache teaches a personal care composition comprising silk fibroin protein fragments and a surfactant (abstract). Costache continues to state that the composition may be part of a cleansing wipe composition (par. [0069]). Costache teaches that the composition may comprise carrageenan, and that a mixture of kappa-carrageenan specifically and a surfactant forms an ordered structure (par. [0441]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to produce a multi-ply planar product (e.g. wipe) as taught by Von Paleske with modifications as taught by Fischer and Costace. As all references above relate to a product such as a wipe, it would have been obvious to combine the various teachings into a single embodiment that includes the multi-ply product comprising tissue paper or toilet paper and a hydrogel acting as a glue for the at least two plies as taught by Von Paleske, wherein the hydrogel is modified to reflect the teachings of Fischer (i.e. carrageenan, alginate, water, cocamidopropyl betaine, citric acid, potassium chloride) and Costache (kappa-carrageenan specifically and a surfactant).
Regarding claim 1, Von Paleske teaches that the composition may be a wipe comprising at least two layers or tissue paper or toilet paper, which are water dispersible substrates, and a hydrogel sandwiched between the layers acting as a glue. It would have been prima facie obvious to modify the hydrogel with the teachings of Fischer and Costache as both refer to the potential for use in a cleansing wipe. Modifying the teachings of Von Paleske with the teachings of Fischer and Costache would result in the hydrogel being derived from kappa-carrageenan, as the kappa form forms the best ordered structure. This composition would also be configured to disperse in water, as tissue or toilet paper is designed to be dispersible and the biopolymer as described by Fischer and Costache would inherently be water soluble or dispersible as a biopolymer. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claims 2-3, Von Paleske teaches that the multi-ply product consists of at least two layers on non-woven material wherein the hydrogel or gelatinous material is present to attach the plies. Therefore, it can be said that the hydrogel composition is interspersed with the plurality of non-woven material such as tissue paper or toilet paper. Therefore, claims 2-3 are rejected.
Regarding claim 4, both Von Paleske and Fischer state that their compositions further comprise water. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected.
Regarding claim 5, both Von Paleske and Fischer state that their compositions may further comprise alginate as a hydrogel material. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Fischer states that the biopolymer material (i.e. carrageenan) is present in an amount ranging from 5 wt% to 95 wt%. Costache teaches that kappa-carrageenan is the ideal version of carrageenan given its ability to form an ordered structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include kappa-carrageenan as a hydrogel component in this amount, which overlaps with the instant claim of less than 50 wt%. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected.
Regarding claim 7, Fischer recites that the composition in at least one embodiment includes crosslinking units resulting from the incorporation of crosslinkers. The inclusion of these crosslinkers into the hydrogel reads on the instant claim, and therefore claim 7 is rejected.
Regarding claim 8, Von Paleske teaches that the multi-ply non-woven material may be tissue paper or toilet paper. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected.
Regarding claims 9-10, Fischer teaches the inclusion of potassium chloride, which is a monovalent salt, as a particulate substance. Therefore, claims 9-10 are rejected.
Regarding claim 11, Fischer teaches that the hydrogel composition may further comprise a surfactant such as cocamidopropyl betaine, a preservative such as phenoxyethanol, and may also include citric acid, albeit with a different intent other than as a pH adjustment agent. However, as citric acid will inherently act as a pH adjustment agent regardless of the reason for its inclusion, it also reads on the instant claim. Given the inclusion of these three ingredients, claim 11 is rejected.
Regarding claim 13, none of the above references teach the inclusion of plastic. The lack of inclusion is reason to motivate its exclusion from the composition. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected. See AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 912 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A] reference need not state a feature’s absence in order to disclose a negative limitation.”); Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claim 14, both Von Paleske and Fischer teach the inclusion of water as a swelling agent and/or acceptable carrier. When water is the only swelling agent or carrier, as in some embodiments outlined by both, the composition may be considered free of alcohols. As described supra, the composition may also be free of plastics, and the multi-ply component may be toilet paper. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected.
Regarding claim 15, kappa-carrageenan may be present in as little as 5 wt% as described supra. Therefore, it may be present in a composition in less than 50 wt% as in the instant claim. The monovalent salt (i.e. potassium chloride) may be present in 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% as described supra. When the monovalent salt is present in a composition containing water, it is possible to describe the weight percentage as a concentration. For example, when KCl is present in 1 wt%, the concentration in mM can be calculated as follows:
m
M
=
w
t
%
×
1000
m
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
×
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
=
1
×
1000
74.555
×
1
=
13.413
m
M
This concentration falls within the claimed range. As described supra, water may also be present in the composition. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Paleske (US20030119397A1, published 6/26/2003) in view of Fischer (US20190359735A1, published 1/3/2023) and Costache (US20220287944A1, published 9/15/2022) as applied to claims 1-11 and 13-15 above, and further in view of Durukan et al. (Data Brief. 2019 Nov 16;28:104818).
Von Paleske, Fischer, and Costache have been described supra.
However, the references are silent regarding tensile strength of the wipe.
This deficiency is made up for by the teachings of Durukan.
Durukan teaches physical characteristics including tensile properties of non-flushable wipes, flushable wipes, and toilet papers (abstract). In particular, Durukan teaches the tensile strength of various commercially available consumer products, including the tensile strength of flushable wipe samples from North America, determined using wet sheets of each sample. In every test, the tensile strength was well over 50 N/m, with an average tensile strength of 154 N/m (see Table 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to develop a wipe with tensile strength greater than 50 N/m, as that is the norm for wipes already on the market. As greater tensile strength is a desirable trait in a wet wipe to prevent breakage, it would have been obvious to meet the average standard of 154 N/m, or develop a product with even greater strength. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW RYAN BURKE whose telephone number is (571)272-8949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/MATTHEW RYAN BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights