DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 18, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 introduces new matter as the claim recites the limitations: "at least about 10 wt.% to about 30 wt.% lyocell” and “at least about 70 wt.% to about 90 wt.% viscose”. There is no support in the specification for these limitations. These limitations were not described in the specification as filed, and a person skilled in the art would not recognize in the applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention as presently claimed. The specification discloses “at least about 10% lyocell, or at least about 30% lyocell” [0124] (previous claim 2) but does not describe the instantly claimed limitation of at least about 10 wt.% - about 30 wt.% lyocell. There is no guidance in the specification to select 30% lyocell as the upper limit, only to have at least 10% lyocell or at least 30% lyocell (i.e., one would recognize in the specification to have 30% as the lower limit of lyocell, not the upper limit). Similarly, the specification discloses up to about 90% viscose (previous claim 3), or up to about 70% viscose [0125] but does not describe the instantly claimed limitation of about 70 wt.% - about 90 wt.% viscose. There is no guidance in the specification to select 70% viscose as the lower limit, only to have up to 70% viscose or up to 90% viscose (i.e., one would recognize in the specification to have 70% as the upper limit of viscose, not the lower limit). From MPEP 2163.06: “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not directed the Examiner to the support in the specification for the amendments. The applicant directed the examiner to originally filed claims 2 and 3 which do not support the new claim limitations. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of filing of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New, Necessitated by Amendment)
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 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Marsh et al. (US 2022/0370303).
Examiner’s note: Claim 1 recites “a sanitizing or disinfecting composition comprising a non-cationic surfactant chemistry and/or an organic acid”. Therefore, only one of a non-cationic surfactant or an organic acid is required.
Regarding claim 1, Marsh discloses wet wipes with a substrate comprising 100% cellulosic fibers with a blend of viscose and lyocell (claims 16-18). The wipes are saturated with compositions, such as in Example 10, which include citric acid (an organic acid) and PEG-40 HCO (a nonionic surfactant) [0058]. Marsh teaches that the substrates comprise between about 30% and about 90% by weight of lyocell fibers and between about 10% and about 70% by weight of viscose fibers (claims 16-18). The wet wipes of Marsh are used for cleansing purposes [0003] [0017].
Marsh is not believed to be anticipatory because Marsh does not disclose a specific example with amounts of lyocell and viscose falling within the claimed range (Example 10 teaches a 50:50 blend of viscose: lyocell). One skilled in the art would need to choose to include the composition taught at Example 10 with the amounts of lyocell and viscose fibers taught at claims 16-18.
Nevertheless, it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., substrate with about 30-90 wt.% lyocell fibers and about 10-70 wt.% viscose fibers; lyocell and viscose substrate saturated with composition containing an organic acid and a nonionic surfactant) were known in the prior art (e.g., Marsh) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a wipe) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Regarding the amounts of the lyocell and viscose, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. An overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
While “an Elmendorf wet tear strength that approximates that of a 100% lyocell substrate of approximately the same basis weight measured in grams per square meter” is not explicitly disclosed, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the prior art discloses a substrate with between about 30% and about 90% by weight of lyocell fibers and about 10% and about 70% by weight of the substrate of viscose fibers the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims are reasonably expected to be necessarily present. Furthermore, Marsh teaches the particular combination of fibers can be altered to provide the desired characteristics [0035]-[0039]. It would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount/ratio of viscose and lyocell within the teachings of Marsh via routine experimentation to achieve the desired characteristics (i.e., tear strength).
Regarding claim 4, while the non-cationic surfactant is not a required feature of the claims as only one of a non-cationic surfactant or an organic acid is required and Marsh teaches citric acid [0058], Marsh also teaches that the compositions may include the anionic surfactant sodium lauroyl glutamate [0028].
Claim 5 is rendered prima facie obvious because the non-cationic surfactant is not a required feature of the claims as only one of a non-cationic surfactant or an organic acid is required and the composition includes citric acid [0058].
Claim 6 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the compositions, such as Example 10, include citric acid [0058].
Claim 7 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the substrate includes 100% cellulosic fibers (claim 16) [0058]. The substrate is free of thermoplastic and synthetic fibers and thermoplastic and synthetic fibers are not a required feature of the wipe compositions of Marsh (whole document).
Claim 8 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the substrate includes 100% cellulosic fibers (claim 16) [0058]. The substrate is free of polyesters, polyolefins, and other synthetic fibers and polyesters, polyolefins, and other synthetic fibers are not a required feature of the wipe compositions of Marsh (whole document).
Claim 9 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the substrate includes 100% cellulosic fibers, which are a combination of lyocell and viscose (claim 16-18) [0058] and are disclosed as non-woven web materials [0036].
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the compositions of the disclosure may be incorporated onto a substrate at a load of about 200% to about 600% (a ratio of about 2:1-6:1). In Example 10 the composition load rate is 390% by weight of the substrate (a ratio of 3.9:1) [0058]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 11 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the substrates have a basis weight between about 15 and about 100 GSM [0043]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 12 is rendered prima facie obvious because the compositions of Marsh, such as Example 10, do not include quaternary ammonium compounds or oxidizers [0058] and quaternary ammonium compounds and oxidizers are not a required feature of the compositions of Marsh (whole document).
Claim 13 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the compositions of the disclosure, such as Example 10, further includes a fragrance (“perfume”) [0058] [0032].
Claim 14 is rendered prima facie obvious because Marsh discloses the compositions of the disclosure have a pH of about 3.5 to about 5 [abstract]. While this pH not negatively impacting the tensile and/or tear strength is not explicitly disclosed, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the prior art discloses a substrate with the same components (substrate with viscose and lyocell; pH from about 3.5 to about 5), the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (pH not negatively impacting the tensile and/or tear strength) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Marsh reference fails to disclose the limitation that the substrate comprises viscose in amounts in the range of 70-90 wt.% and lyocell in the range of 10-30 wt.%.
The Examiner disagrees. Marsh teaches that the substrates comprise between about 30% and about 90% by weight of lyocell fibers and between about 10% and about 70% by weight of viscose fibers (claims 16-18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. An overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Applicant further argues that altering the substrate composition to increase the wet tear strength is not taught anywhere in the Marsh reference. Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation found anywhere in the Marsh reference guiding the skilled person to continue increasing the amount of viscose with the expectation of maintaining wet tear strength comparable to a purely lyocell material.
The Examiner disagrees. Marsh teaches amounts of lyocell and viscose which overlap with the claimed ranges. While “an Elmendorf wet tear strength that approximates that of a 100% lyocell substrate of approximately the same basis weight measured in grams per square meter” is not explicitly disclosed, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the prior art discloses a substrate with between about 30% and about 90% by weight of lyocell fibers and about 10% and about 70% by weight of the substrate of viscose the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made, the burden of production shifts to the applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. See MPEP 2112 V. Applicant has presented no specific rebuttal evidence or showing to support arriving at this conclusion.
Furthermore, Marsh teaches the particular combination of fibers can be altered to provide the desired characteristics [0035]-[0039]. It would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount/ratio of viscose and lyocell within the teachings of Marsh via routine experimentation to achieve the desired characteristics (i.e., tear strength).
The applicant has not provided evidence that the particular range is critical (i.e., by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range). See MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Marsh et al. (US 2022/0370303) in view of Hurley et al. (US 2022/0047468 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The non-cationic surfactant is not a required feature of the claims as only one of a non-cationic surfactant or an organic acid is required and the compositions of Marsh includes citric acid [0058] as discussed above. However, in the interest of completeness of prosecution, purely arguendo, and for the purposes of this ground of rejection only, claim 5 will be interpreted as if requiring the non-cationic surfactant.
In that case, Marsh does not disclose the composition includes an anionic sulfonated or sulfated surfactant, as recited in claim 5.
Hurley discloses a wet wipe for cleaning purposes with a sulfonated anionic surfactant [abstract] [0146]. Hurley teaches that the anionic surfactants are useful due to their high detergency [0146].
Since Marsh generally teaches a wet wipe for cleansing purposes, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a sulfonated anionic surfactant, within the teachings of Marsh, because Hurley teaches a sulfonated anionic surfactant in a wet wipe for cleansing purposes. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use the sulfonated anionic surfactant because Hurley teaches that the anionic surfactants are useful due to their high detergency [0146].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Hurley reference also fails to disclose substrates comprising 70-90 wt.% viscose and lyocell in a range of 10-30 wt.%.
The Examiner disagrees because Marsh teaches the claimed range of viscose and lyocell and is not deficient expect where Hurly teaches the sulfonated anionic surfactant.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights