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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Review of RCE Claim Status
Claims 1-20 were pending in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/20/2024.
Claims 8-12 and 15-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-7, and 13-14 are rejected.
Priority Status
PNG
media_image1.png
66
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NO foreign priority is claimed; the EFD is acknowledged as 08/06/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledged prior IDS submission in Office Action of 06/20/2024.
Drawings
Examiner acknowledged acceptance of drawings in prior Office Action of 06/20/2024.
Sequence Listing
There were no (0) sequence listings admitted to the Instant Application.
Examiner Responses to Arguments/Amendments
The issues raised in the Office Action mailed 03/18/2025, are addressed below:
I. Claim Amendments –
In view of the Applicant’s amendment, Claim 1 was amended with the additional limitation: “and wherein the composition is formulated as a hot melt adhesive selected from the group consisting of:
(a) a metallocene polyethylene (mPE)-based hot melt adhesive, or
(b) an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)-based hot melt adhesive.”
II. Rejections under 35 USC § 112 –
Claims 1-7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
In view of the Applicant’s amendment, with the addition of: structural and physical characterization of the wax, representative examples, structure-function relationship between the wax properties and the observed benefits in HMA formulations, the 35 USC §112 rejection over Claim(s) 1-7, 13, and 14 is withdrawn.
III. Rejections under 35 USC§ 102 -
Applicant' s arguments, filed 07/18/2025, with respect to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason(s):
Claims 1-4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Delevati (WO 2020/234656 A1).
Applicant's reply/arguments filed, have been considered by the Examiner and are found not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Delevati does not disclose each limitation of the present claims.
Firstly, the applicant would like to clarify that: The present application relates to HMAs comprising a metallocene polyethylene (mPE) based adhesive or an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) based adhesive. The HMA compositions of the present disclosure comprise a polyethylene wax derived at least in part from renewable carbon sources (green PE wax), in combination with either metallocene polyethylene (mPE) or ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) as the primary polymer matrix. Each of these components plays a distinct role in the formulation. The green PE wax, characterized by a very high melt flow rate (MFR >10,000 g/10 min), low molecular weight, and biobased origin, functions as a viscosity modifier, set time accelerator, and thermal stabilizer. It enhances flowability, reduces processing temperature, and contributes to faster setting of the adhesive.
Examiner disagrees. In using the Applicant’s support for Claim 1, “Support can be found in at least paragraphs [0044]-[0057] and [00117] of the specification as filed,” it must be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this, the Applicant is reading the terms “primary polymer matrix” into the claims. As such, support for this particular term “primary polymer matrix” is not defined in within the Instant Specification.
Using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, and Delevati as support, the definition of a primary polymer matrix is as indicated by the Applicant is understood to be “In one or more
embodiments, processes may include bonding a substrate to a similar or dissimilar substrate by applying a molten hot melt adhesive composition to a substrate and bonding the treated substrate to a second substrate (paras. [0012], [0016]-[0019])” as well as “biobased EVA copolymers in accordance with the present disclosure may have a melt index (h) as determined by ASTM D1238 with a load of 2.16 kg at 190°C (paras. [0025]).”
In addition, in para. [0027], Delevati states “…it is also envisioned…that other amounts of biobased EVA may be used, depending on the properties of the biobased EVA such as when a blend of biobased EVA and fossil EVA are used together. Thus, in one or more embodiments, an adhesive composition may contain an EVA copolymer (which is a blend of a biobased EVA and a fossil EVA) at percent by weight (wt%) of the composition that ranges from a lower limit of 20 wt%, 30 wt%, 40 wt%, or 50 wt%, to an upper limit of 50 wt%, 60 wt%, 70 wt%, 80 wt%, or 90 wt%, where any lower limit may be paired with any upper limit.”
Finally, as seen in para. [0047] of the instant specification “In some embodiments, biobased EVA may be selected from commercially available resins by Braskem such as SVT2180 or SVT2145R.” This is disclosed in Delevati in para. [0018], “In some embodiments, biobased EVA may be selected from commercially available resins by Braskem such as SVT2180 or SVT2145R.”
This shows the art of Delevati is good for all it teaches.
With respect to Applicant’s discussion of the ‘renewable carbon source’:
This is viewed as product-by-process language and there is no evidence that a polymer with similar structure as taught by the art at paras. [0016]-[0027] would not have similar properties. Further, the arguments relating to melt flow rate (MFR) are not persuasive because these limitations are addressed within the art of Delevati.
With respect to the table listed within the remarks:
Examiner notes the summary, however, the claims are drawn to products, intended uses and overlapping ranges of polymer with the same monomeric units. As such, Delevati is good for the art provided because it has the same properties as the Instant Application. The functional properties of MFR exceeding 10,000 g/10 min is a functional property of the structure of the composition. The ASTM D1238 test method is used to determine the Melt Flow Index (MFI) of thermoplastic polymers; commonly used for polyolefins (polyethylene HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, polypropylene PP). This is disclosed in Delevati (para. [0042]) “Waxes suitable for use in the present invention include paraffin waxes, microcrystalline waxes, high density low molecular weight polyethylene waxes, by-product polyethylene waxes, Fischer-Tropsch waxes, oxidized
Fischer-Tropsch waxes and functionalized waxes such as hydroxy stearamide waxes and fatty amide waxes. It is common in the art to use the terminology synthetic high melting point waxes to include high density low molecular weight polyethylene waxes, by-product polyethylene waxes and Fischer-Tropsch waxes.”
The art of Delevati is good for all it teaches.
With respect to the argument about the wax being an optional features:
The prior art of Delevati teaches not only about a combination of the polymer and wax but discusses polymers that can be combined together such as an EVA biobased polymer and if desired a secondary polymer.
Yet, under BRI, the composition of the polyethylene wax has to comprise as stated in Claim 1 that “at least a portion of ethylene that is obtained from a renewable source of carbon.” As such, Delevati states in para. [0031] the composition “may contain a mixture of biobased EVA and "fossil EVA" copolymers derived from traditional fossil fuel sources or otherwise differentiated from the biobased EVA described above. In some embodiments, an adhesive composition may contain a fossil EVA copolymer a percent by weight (wt%) of the composition.” This reads on Claim 1 because Applicant has not specified what is defined as “at least a portion of the ethylene” to be obtained from a renewable source. This renewable carbon source portion is not quantified explicitly and has shown that there is no criticality attached. Therefore, according to Delevati in para. [0031], the hot melt composition “ranges from a lower limit of 5 wt%, to an upper limit 60 wt%, and when using such a blend, it is envisioned as having a weight ratio (biobased EVA: fossil EVA) having a lower limit of any of 7:93, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 40:60, or 50:50 to an upper limit of 90:10.”
If the Applicant asserts that “the MFR recited in Claim 1 is a property of the polyethylene wax component used in the HMA, not of the final HMA composition.” It must be noted that the backbone of formulation – the polymer - gives the adhesive strength, the degree of flexibility and thermal stability, specific adhesion and compatibility is disclosed in the prior art. The wax as a key element of the blended formulation, to adjust the open and setting times, modify a melt rate, heat resistance, softening point and residual tack of the HMA for each application is disclosed in the art (as noted in the prior Office Actions).
Finally, Applicant argues in relation to the biobased PE Wax that is added to the EVA (or mPE) matrix of the claimed HMA:
In using the prior art of Delevati, the art is good for all the teaching of the Instant Application. Applicant stated the biobased PE wax is added to the EVA matrix of the claimed HMA. In the abstract for the Delevati prior art, “A hot melt adhesive composition may also include a biobased ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer at an amount ranging from 10 to 80 wt% of the hot melt adhesive composition, wherein the biobased EVA comprises a melt index as determined by ASTM Dl238”; it must be noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The provided data does not establish the criticality of the relation noted by the Applicant of “the biobased PE Wax that is added to the EVA (or mPE) matrix of the claimed HMA.” The data used to demonstrate criticality does not show or demonstrate what is considered “biobased PE Wax that is added to the EVA (or mPE) matrix.”
For all the reasons above, the arguments/amendments were not persuasive. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C§ 102 is maintained.
IV. Rejections under 35 USC§ 103 -
Claims 1-7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Delevati (WO 2020/234656 A1).
Applicant argues that: the incorporation of 20-25% of a polyethylene wax with a high MFR into an adhesive composition originally exhibiting viscosities between 30,000 and 90,000 mPa would not be expect to lead to a large reduction in viscosity.
Examiner notes this argument could be persuasive, but argument is not evidence.
If the Applicant can compare such close art and demonstrate the synergistic effect in the arguments then such evidence could be persuasive. However, as it stands with the evidence present within the Instant Specification and Applicant remarks, the argument presented is not evidence. It should be noted that should superior or unexpected results be demonstrated with evidence, the claims would need to be commensurate in scope with the results. As it stands, the claims do not commensurate in scope with the results.
After consideration of Applicant arguments for the 103 with the additional explanation provided for the same topics of discussion provided above, as a whole the 35 USC§ 103 rejection is maintained.
V. Maintained Rejections -
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, states the polymer of the Instant Claims “is obtained from a renewable source of carbon.”
This product can be considered product-by-process language because the resulting polymer made from carbon would be made of carbon regardless the source from which it was made. The Instant Specification at (paras. [0045] and [0058]) teaches several polymers that would meet the instant claims. For example, a weight that would lead to the polymer being a “wax” vs a “resin” for example.
Additionally, the limitation “the polyethylene wax exhibits a melt flow rate, measured according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1238 at 190 °C, between 10,000 and 75,000 g/10 min” is a functional limitation.
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.
Claim 1-7, 13-14 is 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.
The additional limitation “and wherein the composition is formulated as a hot melt adhesive selected from the group consisting of:(a) a metallocene polyethylene (mPE)-based hot melt adhesive, or (b) an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)-based hot melt adhesive.”
In the Instant Specification para. [0057], one of the embodiments: “In one or more embodiments, hot melt adhesive compositions may further comprise a secondary polymer selected from the group consisting of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymers, ethylene copolymers (such as ethylene-acrylic ester copolymers, including ethylene-butyl acrylate copolymers (EBA) and ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymers (EMA)), polyolefins (such as poly a-olefins, including PE and polypropylene (PP), among others), and styrene block copolymers (such as styrene- isoprene-styrene (SIS) and styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS)). In particular embodiments, the secondary polymer may be LLDPE or metallocene PE.
In addition, in para. [00117], there were two types of HMA (hot melt adhesive) tested: a metallocene polyethylene (mPE) based adhesive and an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) based adhesive.
Based on this, it’s unclear whether the HMA composition in Claim 1 further comprises a metallocene polyethylene (mPE) based polymer or an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) based polymer combined with the PE wax and additional excipients and elements.
Is it a HMA complex of PE renewable carbon wax and the additional element of mPE or EVA?
Or is the HMA complex of PE renewable carbon wax comprises within that portion an element is mPE or EVA?
This clarity is needed for the Instant Claim 1 so as to indicate the qualities are included in the composition as the primary elements of the HMA composition, and which qualities are considered secondary elements of the HMA composition.
The dependent claims do not resolve this issue.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, and 13-14 are rejected under 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by G. Delevati in in WO 2020/234656 A1 (pub’d -- 11/26/2020; Int. Filing Date -- 05/20/2020; Priority Date -- 05/20/2019; hereinafter “Publication’656”) as evidenced by ASTM:D1238-10 (Made of Record in prior Office Action).
This rejection applies to the expanded specie as selected in the Election of Species Requirement which is encompassed by Instant Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 1, Publication’656 teaches a composition, comprising: a polyethylene wax, in which the polyethylene of the polyethylene wax comprises at least a portion of ethylene that is obtained from a renewable source of carbon and the polyethylene wax exhibits a melt flow rate, measured according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1238 at 190 °C, between 10,000 and 75,000 g/10min (abstract; Claim 3; Claim 19), and wherein the composition is formulated as a hot melt adhesive selected from the group consisting of:(a) a metallocene polyethylene (mPE)-based hot melt adhesive, or (b) an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)-based hot melt adhesive (para. [0009]; claim 27:…a multi-layer article that includes at least one layer of a hot melt adhesive compositions; and one or more substrate layers, wherein the hot melt adhesive composition includes an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer).
Based on the Instant Specification (para. [0008]) the PE wax is disclosed, “The green PE wax may contain a portion of biobased polyethylene that is derived from a renewable source of carbon, such as a plant- based material. In one or more embodiments, the polymer compositions may be formulated for many different applications. In some embodiments, the polymer compositions may be used as hot melt adhesives, masterbatches, coatings, inks and paints, plastic additives, and the like.”
This supports the use of the Publication’656 since it discloses “A hot melt adhesive composition may also include a biobased ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer at an amount ranging from 10 to 80 wt% of the hot melt adhesive composition, wherein the biobased EVA comprises a melt index (I2) as determined by ASTM D1238 in the range of 1.5 to 50 g/10min measured with a load of 2.16 kg at 190°C...” which reads upon the Instant Claim. The ASTM D1238 standard is a well-known, established test for polymer characterization.
This is also confirmed by the evidentiary reference of Melt Mass-Flow and Melt Volume-Flow Rate - ASTM D1238 that Publication’656 is using the same standard as seen in the Instant Application. The MFR of the polyethylene waxes are measured with a weight of 2.16 kg, a temperature of 190 °C, according to ASTM D1238.
Publication’656 continues teaching the following claims:
Claim 2: wherein the composition contains the polyethylene wax in an amount in the range of 0.5 to 65 % by weight (para. [0027]; In other embodiments, biobased EVA present in the composition at a percent by weight of the composition that ranges from 20 wt% to 40 wt%; the prior art range is squarely within the claim range).
Claim 3: wherein the polyethylene wax exhibits a biobased carbon content as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6866 of at least 10% (para. [0019]; Biobased EVA copolymers may have a biobased carbon content as determined by ASTM D6866-18 Method B that ranges from a lower limit selected from any one of 5%, 10%, 20%, 40 %, and 55%; which reads on the claim).
Claim 4: wherein the polyethylene wax exhibits a biobased carbon content as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6866 of at least 5% (para. [0019]; Biobased EVA copolymers may have a biobased carbon content as determined by ASTM D6866-18 Method B that ranges from a lower limit selected from any one of 5%, 10%, 20%, 40 %, and 55%; which reads on the claim).
Claim 13: wherein an article comprising a substrate and a coating on the substrate, the coating comprising the composition of claim 1 (para. [0009]; claim 27: In yet another aspect, embodiments disclosed herein relate to a multi-layer article that includes at least one layer of a hot melt adhesive compositions; and one or more substrate layers, wherein the hot melt adhesive composition includes an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer).
Claim 14: wherein the composition is a hot melt adhesive and also comprises a polyolefin resin (para. [0019]; Biobased EVA copolymers may have a biobased carbon content as determined by ASTM D6866-18 Method B), a tackifier (para. [0035]-[0037]; Tackifiers include any compatible resins or mixtures), and a second wax (para. [0042]; Adhesive compositions in accordance with the present disclosure may optionally incorporate one or more waxes). Further, Publication’656 teaches vinyl acetate as a monomer in a copolymer.
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.
Joint Inventors
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) 1-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G. Delevati in in WO 2020/234656 A1 (pub’d -- 11/26/2020; Int. Filing Date -- 05/20/2020; Priority Date -- 05/20/2019; hereinafter “Publication’656”) as evidenced by ASTMD1238-10 (Made of Record in prior Office Action).
The teachings of Publication’656 - are disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated by reference herein.
This rejection also applies to the elected specie – polyolefin, tackifier and additional wax. For example, the ‘Publication’656 publication teaches in para. [0015]:
“In one or more embodiments, adhesive compositions may be formulated with various performance modifiers that include tackifier resins and optional waxes to tailor the adhesive compositions for particular applications. Each of the components will be discussed in detail in the following sections.”
With respect to Claim 1, Publication’656 teaches a composition, comprising: a polyethylene wax, in which the polyethylene of the polyethylene wax comprises at least a portion of ethylene that is obtained from a renewable source of carbon and the polyethylene wax exhibits a melt flow rate, measured according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1238 at 190 °C, (abstract; Claim 3; Claim 19) and wherein the composition is formulated as a hot melt adhesive selected from the group consisting of: (b) an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)-based hot melt adhesive (para. [0009]; claim 27:…a multi-layer article that includes at least one layer of a hot melt adhesive compositions; and one or more substrate layers, wherein the hot melt adhesive composition includes an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer).
Although the Publication’656 fails to teach the standard at ASTM D1238 in the range desired of 10,000-75,000 but it does teach the standard. The testing of ASTM D1238 with a load of 2.16 kg at 190°C ("melt index") is the standard condition for measuring the Melt Flow Rate (MFR) or Melt Index (MI) of polyethylene (PE). The polymers taught therein would be capable of the function, alternatively, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to arrive at these polymers having the functional characteristics to meet the instantly claimed standard. As the structural components of the prior art are the same as Applicant’s, one would expect the same functional outcome.
Further, the Publication’656 teaches antioxidants and stabilizers at paragraph [0050] as common additives. Based on the Instant Specification (para. [0008]) the PE wax is disclosed, “The green PE wax may contain a portion of biobased polyethylene that is derived from a renewable source of carbon, such as a plant- based material. In one or more embodiments, the polymer compositions may be formulated for many different applications. In some embodiments, the polymer compositions may be used as hot melt adhesives, masterbatches, coatings, inks and paints, plastic additives, and the like.”
This supports the use of the Publication’656 since it discloses “A hot melt adhesive composition may also include a biobased ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer at an amount ranging from 10 to 80 wt% of the hot melt adhesive composition, wherein the biobased EVA comprises a melt index (I2) as determined by ASTM D1238 in the range of 1.5 to 50 g/10min measured with a load of 2.16 kg at 190°C...” which reads upon the Instant Claim since it is a standard with no upper limit. This is also an overlapping range of the EVA polymer of claim 5 and 7.
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at polyethylene polymers and ASTM D1238 as meeting the functional limitation because at least polymer lengths and ASTM standards are a result effective variable. For polyolefins with MFR values greater than 75 g/10 min, ASTM D1238 recommends using Procedure C, which employs a die with half the length and diameter to reduce the flow rate to a more manageable and measurable level. A melt flow rate in the tens of thousands of grams per 10 minutes would indicate an extremely low viscosity material that would flow almost instantly through the standard die, making accurate measurement by this method practically impossible. The material would likely pour out of the machine during the pre-heat period before the test even begins. Outside of criticality, this is a routine optimization of rate, and/or concentration leads to different polymer lengths or need for another type of ASTM standard. One could readily optimize polymer length as well as the specific conditions to arrive at polyethylene polymers (HMA composition) meeting the instant functional limitation.
See for example, MPEP 2144.05 incorporated by reference herein.
Further, with respect to claims 5-7, the Publication’656 teaches the copolymer and overlapping ratios, but fails to teach the combination of components in claims 5-7.
However, applying KSR-Prong A, one skilled in the art could combine known polymers with known additives as suggested by Publication’656 to arrive at the instant combination of agents in the claims. Since Publication’656 teaches secondary polymers (“waxes” in for example claim 17 and 18); antioxidants and stabilizers at [0050], and tackifiers at for example at [0003]). The standard procedure for ASTM D1238 for EVA involves heating the EVA sample in an extrusion plastometer and extruding the molten material through a die of specified dimensions under prescribed conditions of temperature and load. Procedure A involves manually cutting and weighing timed extrudates, while other procedures (B, C, D) offer automated or multi-weight measurements. The results indicate the material's flow uniformity and can help differentiate between various grades of EVA.
Combining known polymers and known additives is a routine practice to create new materials with specific desired properties (e.g., enhanced mechanical strength, flame resistance, better processing). The results of such combinations can often be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art, especially when the components are well-known Thus, one would expect success combining known ingredients taught for the same purpose all know for making a polymeric hot melt composition.
With respect to the ratios of claims 5 and 7, the Publication’656 teaches 10% and 30% by wt tackifier (in example [0037]) which is an overlapping percentages.
However, the Publication’656 publication fails to teach an embodiment having the overlapping ratios of all components of claims 5 and 7.
Yet, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize ratios of known polymer components because such optimization would be changing concentrations of reactants which is well within the skill of the artisan and is routine optimization absent a showing of criticality.
Conclusions
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Josmalen M. Ramos-Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-0084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton A. Brooks can be reached on (571)270-7682. 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.
Josmalen M. Ramos-Lewis, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621