DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 17/118,860 filed 11 December 2020, which claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 62/947,870. Claims 1-2, 5-16, 18-19, and 21 are pending. Claims 3-4, 17, and 20 are canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 27 June 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 5-10, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0079748 A1) (Ahmed) in view of Mehta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0118689 A1) and Bozich et al. (US Patent No. 5,392,592) (Bozich), and as evidenced by Hyde et al. (US Patent No. 6,497,949 B1) (Hyde).
Regarding instant claims 1-2, 16, and 18:
Ahmed teaches a moisture sensitive hot melt composition in individual forms (Abstract, paragraph [0031], and claim 13), wherein the individual forms comprise a moisture sensitive hot melt composition (Abstract; paragraph [0031]; claim 13) and are selected from the group consisting of a pillow (paragraph [0069]). Ahmed further teaches the moisture sensitive hot melt composition is useful in disposable absorbent articles, such as disposable diapers, feminine napkins, and medical dressings and beddings (Abstract).
Ahmed fails to teach wherein the individual forms further comprise a coextruded outer shell comprising a thermoplastic polymer, wherein the individual forms include a sealed zone of outer shell material extending outward from the body of the individual forms, on no more than two opposing sides of the individual forms.
However, Mehta discloses a package material comprising a plastic mass having a finite size and shape and a polymeric film surrounding said plastic mass, wherein the plastic mass is a hot melt adhesive (paragraphs [0035; 0061]).
Mehta discloses that the plastic mass is sealed by the polymeric film through a coextrusion process, wherein the coated extrudate is pinched mechanically and sealed (paragraph [0042]).
Mehta further discloses that said polymeric film comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (paragraph [0063]), specifically a thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer (paragraph [0086]) inclusive of styrene block copolymers inclusive of styrene-butadiene (SB), styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS), styrene-isoprene (SI), styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS), styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS), styrene-ethylene-butylene (SEB), styrene-ethylene-propylene-styrene (SEPS) (paragraph [0102]).
Hyde provides evidence that thermoplastic elastomers inclusive of styrene block copolymers consisting of copolymerized styrene and isoprene, butadiene, or ethylene-butylene are hydrophobic (Hyde at col. 3, lines 50-54).
Mehta teaches that the disclosed hot melt adhesive compositions are used in disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, and hospital pads (paragraph [0041]).
Mehta discloses that the claimed polymeric film provides many benefits inclusive of its ability to be melted with the packaged hot melt adhesive without having any substantial deleterious effects because it is substantially compatible with hot melt adhesives. Furthermore, said polymeric film is resistant to migration therethrough of low molecular weight compounds from the adhesive it surrounds or from any external source it might contact, which results in a package that is substantially non-blocking when exposed to environmental conditions (paragraph [0033]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to package the individual hot melt adhesive forms of Ahmed in the sealed polymeric film of Mehta. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a substantially non-blocking packaged hot melt adhesive wherein the packaging material may be melted with the adhesive without deleteriously impacting the properties of the adhesive material.
Further, Bozich discloses a method for releasably packaging a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising extruding a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive into a continuous tubular film and crimping the continuous tubular film at a predetermined distance such that a predetermined amount of the extruded hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive is isolated between at least two of the crimps, whereby upon cooling, the isolated predetermined amount of hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive is releasably packaged between at least two of said crimps (col. 4, lines 3-31).
Bozich teaches that when a hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive is releasably packaged between the two crimps, it is capable of being removed by hand from the packaging without tack and stacked in boxes for bulk sale (col. 12, lines 50-54).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to form explicit crimps, as taught by Bozich, in the packaging of Ahmed in view of Mehta. The motivation for doing so would have been that isolating a predetermined amount of hot-melt adhesive between two crimps forms a package suitable for bulk sale because it can be stacked and removed by hand due to a lack of tack.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific size of the crimped seal (i.e., reading on the claimed sealed zone extending at least 1 millimeter in length) is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the ability of the form to be handled and packaged are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting crimped structure, the precise size would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the size of the crimps in the prior art combination to obtain the desired handling properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mehta and Bozich with Ahmed to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claims 5-7:
Ahmed teaches wherein the moisture sensitive hot melt composition is selected from the group consisting of pH indicating, moisture indicating, and moisture absorbing wetness indicating compositions (Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 8:
Ahmed teaches comprising an indicator selected from the group consisting of bromocresol green and bromophenol blue (Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding instant claim 9:
Ahmed teaches wherein the moisture sensitive hot melt composition is a hot melt moisture absorbent polymer composition (superabsorbent polymer, Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 10:
Ahmed teaches comprising from 10% by weight to 65% by weight of a moisture absorbent polymer (about 2% to about 50% by weight, paragraph [0050]).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10-65% by weight, it is noted that the prior art and claimed ranges do overlap and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the claimed range because, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding instant claim 21:
Ahmed teaches a moisture sensitive hot melt composition in individual forms (Abstract, paragraph [0031], and claim 13), wherein the individual forms comprise a moisture sensitive hot melt composition (Abstract; paragraph [0031]; claim 13).
Ahmed fails to teach wherein the individual forms further comprise a coextruded outer shell comprising a thermoplastic polymer, wherein the individual forms include a sealed zone of outer shell material extending outward from the body of the individual forms, on no more than two opposing sides of the individual forms.
However, Mehta discloses a package material comprising a plastic mass having a finite size and shape and a polymeric film surrounding said plastic mass, wherein the plastic mass is a hot melt adhesive (paragraphs [0035; 0061]).
Mehta discloses that the plastic mass is sealed by the polymeric film through a coextrusion process, wherein the coated extrudate is pinched mechanically and sealed (paragraph [0042]).
Mehta further discloses that said polymeric film comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (paragraph [0063]), specifically a thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer (paragraph [0086]) inclusive of styrene block copolymers inclusive of styrene-butadiene (SB), styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS), styrene-isoprene (SI), styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS), styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS), styrene-ethylene-butylene (SEB), styrene-ethylene-propylene-styrene (SEPS) (paragraph [0102]).
Hyde provides evidence that thermoplastic elastomers inclusive of styrene block copolymers consisting of copolymerized styrene and isoprene, butadiene, or ethylene-butylene are hydrophobic (Hyde at col. 3, lines 50-54).
Mehta teaches that the disclosed hot melt adhesive compositions are used in disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, and hospital pads (paragraph [0041]).
Mehta discloses that the claimed polymeric film provides many benefits inclusive of its ability to be melted with the packaged hot melt adhesive without having any substantial deleterious effects because it is substantially compatible with hot melt adhesives. Furthermore, said polymeric film is resistant to migration therethrough of low molecular weight compounds from the adhesive it surrounds or from any external source it might contact, which results in a package that is substantially non-blocking when exposed to environmental conditions (paragraph [0033]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to package the individual hot melt adhesive forms of Ahmed in the sealed polymeric film of Mehta. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a substantially non-blocking packaged hot melt adhesive wherein the packaging material may be melted with the adhesive without deleteriously impacting the properties of the adhesive material
Further, Bozich discloses a method for releasably packaging a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising extruding a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive into a continuous tubular film and crimping the continuous tubular film at a predetermined distance such that a predetermined amount of the extruded hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive is isolated between at least two of the crimps, whereby upon cooling, the isolated predetermined amount of hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive is releasably packaged between at least two of said crimps (col. 4, lines 3-31).
Bozich teaches that when a hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive is releasably packaged between the two crimps, it is capable of being removed by hand from the packaging without tack and stacked in boxes for bulk sale (col. 12, lines 50-54).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to form explicit crimps, as taught by Bozich, in the packaging of Ahmed in view of Mehta. The motivation for doing so would have been that isolating a predetermined amount of hot-melt adhesive between two crimps forms a package suitable for bulk sale because it can be stacked and removed by hand due to a lack of tack.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific size of the crimped seal (i.e., reading on the claimed sealed zone extending at least 1 millimeter in length) is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the ability of the form to be handled and packaged are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting crimped structure, the precise size would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the size of the crimps in the prior art combination to obtain the desired handling properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mehta and Bozich with Ahmed to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Mehta as evidenced by Hyde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Remmers et al. (US Patent Application Publication No US 2014/0356562 A1) (Remmers) and Gu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/02687742 A1) (Gu).
Regarding instant claim 11:
Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich discloses the packaged hot melt adhesive structure as cited above.
Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich does not explicitly disclose the Mettler Softening point of the outer shell in relation to the application temperature of the hot melt adhesive composition.
However, Remmers discloses a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition and a coating composition (Claim 1).
Remmers teaches that the coatings improve handling of hot-melt adhesives and prevents agglomeration permanently and reliably (paragraph [0011]).
Remmers teaches that the coating has a melting temperature between about 60°C and 170°C (paragraph [0158]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the softening point would be lower than this as the outer shell would soften before it melts.
Gu teaches useful application temperatures of hot melt wetness indicator compositions include from about 100°C to about 180°C (Paragraph [0077]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to ensure that the adhesive package of Ahmed in view of Mehta has a coating with a softening point below the range of Remmers. The motivation for doing so would have been that such coatings improve handling of hot-melt adhesives. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to ensure that the hot-melt adhesive has an application temperature as taught by Gu. The motivation for doing so would have been that such an application temperature is recognized in the art as a useful temperature for the intended application of the adhesive.
The combination of the melting/softening point of the coating and the application temperature of the adhesive disclosed by the prior art combination would necessarily include the range recited by the claim; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
While there is no disclosure in the prior art references that the softening point is measured according to Mettler Softening Point, absent evidence of criticality regarding how the softening point is measured and given that the softening point falls within the range presently claimed, it is the Examiner's position that the prior art combination meets the requirements of the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Remmers and Gu with Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claims 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Remmers.
Regarding instant claims 12-13:
Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich discloses the packaged hot melt adhesive structure as cited above.
Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich does not explicitly disclose an amount of coating per individual form.
However, Remmers discloses a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition and a coating composition (Claim 1).
Remmers teaches that the coatings improve handling of hot-melt adhesives and prevents agglomeration permanently and reliably (paragraph [0011]).
Remmers teaches that the coating may be present in an amount between about 0.1 wt % and about 5 wt % referring to the total weight of the packaged hot-melt adhesive (paragraph [0156]). The range disclosed by Remmers overlaps the ranges recited by the claims; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the coating of Mehta in the amount prescribed by Remmers. The motivation for doing so would have been that the amount of the coating material necessarily contributes to the ability of the coating to improve handling of hot-melt adhesives and prevents agglomeration permanently and reliably.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Remmers with Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claims 14-15 and 19:
Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich discloses the packaged hot melt adhesive structure as cited above.
Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich does not disclose the weight of the individual forms.
However, Remmers discloses a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising a hot-melt pressure sensitive adhesive composition and a coating composition (Claim 1).
Remmers teaches that the coatings improve handling of hot-melt adhesives and prevents agglomeration permanently and reliably (paragraph [0011]).
Remmers further teaches that the individual forms can weigh less than about 15 grams (paragraph [0163]). The range disclosed by Remmers overlaps the ranges recited by the claims; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her to produce the packaged adhesive of Ahmed in view of Mehta as evidenced by Hull to have the weight prescribed by Remmers. The motivation for doing so would have been that the weight the individual form necessarily contributes to the handling of the product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Remmers with Ahmed in view of Mehta and Bozich to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of record are fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the merits of their invention as related to the claimed size of the sealed-zone. Applicant contends that there is no teaching in the prior art that the particular variable in question, i.e., the length of the sealed zone, is effective in any result. Applicant further argues that their original disclosure demonstrates unexpected benefits attributed to the length of their crimped ends because Example 1 (with sealed zones) exhibits significantly greater humidity resistance when compared to Control 3 (coextruded pillows without sealed zones), while both being comparable from a handling and packaging perspective.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. As cited in the rejections of record, the prior art of record recognizes that those hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive is releasably packaged between the two crimps, it is capable of being removed by hand from the packaging without tack and stacked in boxes for bulk sale. Although the prior art does not recognize the same benefits afforded by the crimped ends, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the prior art appreciates the presence of said zones, and it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of said zones to obtain an optimized product that meets the limitations of the claims, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results afforded by the claimed size of the sealed zones are unpersuasive. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. Further, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
In the instant case, the evidence upon which Applicant relies to show unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claims because the evidence is narrower in scope than that claims, and there is doubt that the alleged unexpected results are present in every embodiment encompassed by the scope of the claims. Specifically, the examples comprise a specific adhesive composition, a specific coating composition, and a specific structure (e.g., a 6 mm sealed zone). In contrast, the claims are drawn to a generic core of a moisture sensitive hot melt composition, a generic outer shell comprising a hydrophobic thermoplastic polymer, and a generic coating structure with the only stipulation being a sealed zone of at least 1 mm in length. Furthermore, Applicant provides only one example within the scope of the claims and one comparative example without sealed zones. One example within the scope and another outside the scope is not sufficient to show the criticality of the claimed size range of the sealed zone.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 05/20/2026
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights