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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Mackey (7,041,369).
Mackey teaches starch fiber webs formed by spun bonding (Abstract and col 3: 10). Starch is considered to meet the limitation of a hydroxyl polymer. Mackey teaches active agents such as oxidation agents, emulsifiers, surfactants, debonding agents, lubricants, optical brighteners, antioxidants, flame retardants, and proteins (col 9: 41 -47). Mackey teaches an amount of filament forming materials (starch) present in the filament as 5% to about 99.99% (col 5: 39-41), and an amount of active agent of about 0.001% to about 95% (col 7: 33-36); each range taught by Mackey overlaps the claimed range. Mackey teaches that the diameter of at least one filament, the starch composition, is drawn down to an average diameter of less than 10 microns, overlapping the claimed diameter (col 16: 38-42). Moreover, "the one or more active agents are uniformly distributed throughout the filament", Mackey teaches the other ingredients "may be incorporated into the spinnable starch composition" teaching the additives are added before the spinning process and are therefore incorporated into the spun filament (col 9: 40-43). Mackey teaches amounts of active agents up to 99.99% (see citation above). Mackey teaches a ratio of filament forming materials to active agents in a range of 1:19 to 99:1, overlapping the claimed range. Mackey teaches starch (see above). Mackey teaches a molecular weight of the starch typically from about 2,000 to about 500,000 amu (col 5: 28-33). Mackey teaches hydroxyl plasticizers are organic compounds having at least one hydroxyl group, such as sugars (glucose, sucrose, fructose, raffmose, maltodextrose, galactose, xylose, maltose, lactose, mannose, and erythrose); glycerol; sugar alcohols (xylitol, maltitol, and sorbitol); and polyols such as ethylene glycol and propylene glycol (col 7: 60 to col 8:6). Mackey teaches surfactants (col 9, 44-46). Mackey teaches surfactants, useful as cleaning having an average diameter of less than 10 microns, overlapping the claimed diameter (see citation above). Mackey teaches high molecular weight polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol that are substantially compatible with starch and can be added to the starch fibers in order to achieve the desired extensional viscosity encompassing agents as disclosed in the instant specification (pg. 11: 3-5). Mackey teaches characteristics for the starch compositions (col 5: 55-59). Mackey teaches polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyvinyl alcohol (col 6: 60-61) as an added high molecular weight polymer. Mackey teaches a bound water content of typically about 8% to about 12%. Mackey teaches fabric care agents such as surfactants and oxidizing agents, reading on cleaning agents, optical brighteners, and stain removal/reduction agents (col 11: 44-48). See also the instant specification, pg 11:3-9. Mackey teaches a nonwoven web comprising melt blown or spunbond fibers (col 11: 20- 26) comprising starch (hydroxyl polymer, see above) and one or more active agents (see above) that are released by melting or dissolution of the starch polymer. Furthermore, Mackey teaches the amount of active agent and filament fiber in the composition (see above), the active agent in the form of surfactants, and the diameter of the fiber (see above).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time the invention was made to combine the components to suggest the claimed cleaning product. Mackey et al teach each of the claimed ingredients for the purpose of cleaning variety of surfaces wherein the skilled artisan would look to Mackey et al for guidance in producing a water-soluble inter-entangled filament with greater than 20% of film forming material being a hydroxyl polymer since these limitations are taught within the four corners of the reference and in the absence of a showing to the contrary.
With respect to the water content test, dissolution time, stiffness test and disintegration time, Mackey et al teach applicant's preferred polyvinyl alcohol as a film forming material and further teach releasing and dissolving of the filament, where the skilled artisan would expect similar characteristics of the article, in the absence of a showing to the contrary. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See /n re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), and MPEP 2112-2112.02.
Claim 1-23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacQuarrie (2005/0003991).
MacQuarrie is directed to water soluble strips of film carrying surfactants for use as soaps and detergents (Abstract). The films rapidly dissolve upon the addition of water and can be used as soap for cleaning clothes or in other household cleaning applications (paragraph 0002). Polymers in the films include hydroxyl polymers including sodium carboxymethylcellulose and other water soluble celluloses like hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as well as polyvinyl alcohols (paragraph 00010). MacQuarrie teaches the hydroxyl polymers hold sufficient surfactant and generate desirable open foam upon the addition of water with agitation (paragraph 0005), and the film thickness falls within 15-600 microns (0015). Surfactants include anionic, nonionic, amphoteric, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0011). Example 2 of MacQuarrie discloses detergent strips comprising 20-25 wt.% HPMC, 10 wt.% water, 5 wt.% glycerin, 50-70 wt.% surfactant blend (sodium lauryl sulphate, alkylaryl ethoxylate carboxylic acid), and 1 wt.% fragrance (paragraph 0029). The examiner is interpreting water, the surfactant blend, and fragrance to be fabric care active agents for a total amount of fabric care active agents being in an amount of 61-81 wt.%. MacQuarrie also teaches its final films can be dusted to prevent sticking with talcum powder (paragraph 0025). The instant specification defines "particulates" as meaning a powder (see specification pg. 16, line 14) and "active agents" as meaning an additive that produces an intended effect in an environment external to a filament and/or nonwoven web comprising the filament of the present (see specification pg. 9, lines 20-21).
Regarding the limitations directed to "dry filament basis" and the filaments' water content recited in instant claims; the examples of MacQuarrie's water soluble film strips do not contain more than 15 wt.% water, which meets the definition of the instant specification (see paragraphs 0028-0035 of MacQuarrie and pg. 15, lines 16-23 of the instant specification). Since the examiner does not have access to laboratory equipment to carry out the Water Content Test Method, Stiffness test and Dissolution test described in the instant specification; burden is on applicant to prove otherwise and show that MacQuarrie's modified composition does not exhibit the instant water content. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See /n re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), and MPEP 2112-2112.02.
Double Patenting
Application/Control Number: 18/474,547
Page 2
Art Unit: 1761
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) SO as to prevent the
unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent
and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d)
may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a
result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP
§ 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21, 1-14, 1-14, 1-17, 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12194118, 8785361, 9421153, 10894005 and 11944696 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the product as claimed overlaps with the claims of the aforementioned patents where the skill artisan would have been able to include obvious variants and optimize components or proportions within the level of the ordinary artisan given that the product comprising a plurality of inter- entangled filaments of the claimed invention are the same or similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights