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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending in the current application.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Claims 11 and 19 are amended in the current application.
Claim 21 is newly added in the current application.
Claim 18 is canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on October 8, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not have modified Campbell with the teachings of Hufschmid without relying on impermissible hindsight.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present instance, no knowledge was solely gleaned from applicant’s disclosure. The teachings, suggestions, and motivations provided in the grounds of rejection below were all disclosed within the applied prior art references. Therefore, the rejections set forth below are considered to properly establish a prima facie case of obviousness under the requirements of 35 USC 103.
Applicant argues that because the specification of the claimed invention as originally filed refers to Hufschmid, the utilization of Hufschmid should be impermissible, where the Non-Final Rejection also acknowledges the specification’s usage of Hufschmid’s wax fibers.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Hufschmid (EP 2392630 A1) is a valid prior art reference having a publication date of December 7, 2011 that predates the effective filing date of the claimed invention of September 2, 2020 (and Foreign Priority date of September 5, 2019). Moreover, Hufschmid is listed on the IDS filed February 21, 2022, and therefore, is specifically identified for consideration during examination.
Although the Non-Final Rejection acknowledges that Hufschmid’s wax fibers are specifically disclosed within the specification as originally filed, this acknowledgement is not utilized as the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for any of the grounds of rejection set forth below. On the contrary, the Non-Final Rejection acknowledges the specification’s discussion Hufschmid’s wax fibers to affirm that the wax fibers of the prior art (i.e., Hufschmid’s wax fibers) are indeed the identical wax fibers recited and utilized by the claimed invention. This acknowledgement is intended to align with the concept that “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01, I. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01, II. In view of the foregoing, Hufschmid’s wax fibers are considered to be identical to and satisfy the claimed “wax fibers and/or fiber bundles… made solely of wax.”
The teachings, suggestions, and motivations all originate from the applied prior art. Campbell and Hufschmid both disclose fibers that are formed of polyolefin materials (Campbell, [0096]-[0097]; Hufschmid, [0016], [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized Hufschmid’s polyolefin wax fibers and fiber bundles as Campbell’s polyolefins fibers to yield a fiber-containing composition that exhibits high hydrophobic liquid binding capacity and adsorbent properties for numerous environmentally harmful substances (Hufschmid, [0011], [0013]-[0016]).
Applicant argues that Campbell already achieves good adhesion without the presence of additional oil absorbing fillers.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123 I & II. Although Campbell discloses good adhesion without the presence of additional oil absorbing fillers, Campbell also teaches fillers (such as organic fibers like polyolefin fibers) can be added to further improve adhesion, improve corrosion resistance, control rheological properties, reduce shrinkage, accelerate curing, absorb contaminants, and/or improve heat resistance (Campbell, [0094]-[0096]). Campbell does not teach away, prohibit, or discourage the addition of fillers. In view of the foregoing, one skilled in the art would have ample suggestion and motivation to add fillers (such as Hufschmid’s wax fibers) to Campbell’s compositions with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues that Campbell’s composition combined with Hufschmid’s fibers would not be able to be centrifuged to achieve separation or recycling.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Although Examiner acknowledges and agrees with Applicant’s statement regarding Campbell’s composition not being suitable for centrifuge separations, Examiner notes that Hufschmid also states that the fibers exhibit high hydrophobic liquid binding capacity and adsorbent properties for numerous environmentally harmful substances (Hufschmid, [0011], [0013]-[0016]). This motivation is still sufficient to support the prima facie case of obviousness established in the grounds of rejection set forth below under 35 USC 103.
Applicant argues that Hufschmid is not analogous art.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all of Campbell, Hufschmid, and the claimed invention all pertain to materials that are designed for and exhibit adsorbent properties (Campbell, [0036], [0094]-[0100]; Hufschmid, [0001], [0016]; Spec, [0001], [0006], [0010], [0022]). Moreover, all of Campbell, Hufschmid, and the claimed invention disclose and discuss fiber-type materials (Campbell, [0036], [0094]-[0098]; Hufschmid, [0001], [0016]; Spec, [0001], [0009]-[0013]). In view of the foregoing, Hufschmid is considered to be analogous and relevant prior art.
Additionally, Campbell, Kitson, and the claimed invention all pertain to adhesive-type polymeric compositions. Although Kitson does not explicitly discuss adsorbent properties and fiber-type materials, Kitson provides a broad and clear suggestion that tackifiers, plasticizers, and other components (such as waxes and filler agents) may be added to adjust Tg, viscosity, and other properties (Kitson, [0018]-[0020]).
Applicant argues that claim 11 recites “consisting essentially of” that restricts the inclusion of materials and/or method steps that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355. See MPEP 2111.03, III. The specification as originally filed at [0017] states that the invention “can contain further components, for example further fillers, …, and/or polymeric additives.” In view of the foregoing, the teachings of Kitson (in combination with the other applied prior art) as applied in the grounds of rejection below are considered to fall well within basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. Moreover, a thorough reading of the specification as originally filed does not appear to explicitly identify any materials and/or method steps that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics, so long as the resultant composition is an adhesive material that provides a degree of adsorbent properties. In view of the foregoing, the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” can reasonably be construed as equivalent to “comprising” according to MPEP 2111.03, III.
Applicant argues that Kitson’s tackifier is identified as equivalent to the claimed “additional filler,” however, as newly amended, the additional filler is now specifically calcium carbonate.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. A new ground of rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by this new claim amendment. Kitson is now additionally combined with Xanthos, where Xanthos teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to add calcium carbonate as an additive filler in polymeric materials to provide cost reduction, improved modulus, improved impact strength, improved ductility, improved tensile strength, and improved dimensional stability, while being non-hazardous and non-toxic (Xanthos, Pgs 271, 275, 277-279).
Applicant states that claim 19 has been amended.
Examiner acknowledges. A new ground of rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by this new claim amendment.
Applicant states that claim 21 is newly added.
Examiner acknowledges. Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2013/0217804 A1), in view of Hufschmid (EP 2392630 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), and in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0244649 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Campbell teaches a curable structural adhesive mixture composition comprising an adhesive epoxy polymer resin and can include fillers in the form of fibers (Campbell, Abstract, [0006]-[0011], [0094]-[0097]). Campbell teaches the fibers include organic fibers such as polyolefin fibers that can be treated to increase their hydrophobicity (Campbell, [0096]-[0097]). Campbell teaches the fillers (such as fiber fillers) are included to promote adhesion, improve corrosion resistance, control rheological properties, reduce shrinkage during curing, adsorb contaminants, and improve heat resistance (Campbell, [0094]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that fiber fillers are three-dimensional and, when included, yield a volume structure within the curable structural adhesive mixture composition with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Campbell remains silent regarding a wax being present in the form of a fiber and/or fiber bundle and being made solely from the wax; remains silent regarding the wax fiber and/or fiber bundle specifically providing hydrophobicity (i.e., for hydrophobic substances as required by claim 2).
Hufschmid, however, teaches sprayed waxes in a form of fibrous material are suitable in applications as adsorbent materials for hydrophobic liquids (Hufschmid, [0001], [0011], [0013]-[0016], [0021]-[0025]). Hufschmid teaches the waxes include natural and synthetic waxes, where synthetic waxes include polyolefin waxes (Hufschmid, [0016], [0025]). Hufschmid teaches the waxes are spray products formed from melting and spraying the polyolefin waxes through a nozzle to form a fibrous matted product (i.e., a fiber bundle), where the fibrous matted product is formed solely of the polyolefin wax (Hufschmid, [0016]-[0021], [0029]-[0033]). Hufschmid’s fibrous material/fibrous matted product is formed via a consistent process, and therefore, the fibrous material/fibrous matted product is considered to have a same and consistent physical structure other than having different lengths and different diameters with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Since Campbell and Hufschmid both disclose fibers that are formed of polyolefin materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Hufschmid’s polyolefin wax fibers and fiber bundles as Campbell’s polyolefins fibers to yield a fiber-containing composition that exhibits high hydrophobic liquid binding capacity and adsorbent properties for numerous environmentally harmful substances as taught by Hufschmid (Hufschmid, [0011], [0013]-[0016]).
Modified Campbell remains silent regarding the fibers having different lengths and different diameters.
Johnson, however, teaches fiber blends for polymeric composites, where the fiber blends comprise short fibrillated fibers having a small diameter and high aspect ratio with an average length of about 0.1 mm to about 2.5 mm and short non-fibrillated fibers that have a different average length of about 50 µm to about 2000 µm (Johnson, [0001], [0006]-[0010], [0014]-[0020], [0046]). Johnson teaches the fiber blends can include additives such as waxes (Johnson, [0032]). Johnson teaches by selecting fibers having differing sizes, a homogeneous blend contributing to the overall properties can be achieved that possesses void volume structures from fibrillations and partitioning (i.e., three-dimensional volume structures) (Johnson, [0034]-[0039]).
Since modified Campbell and Johnson both disclose fibers that are for use in polymeric composite mixtures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a fiber blend of different aspect ratios, lengths, and diameters to form modified Campbell’s fibers to yield a composition that can be formed with improved dispersion and reduced mixing time, reduces polymer degradation, achieves more consistent properties, can reduce waste during batch production, and exhibits improved strength and mechanical properties as taught by Johnson (Johnson, [0005], [0054]-[0058]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, modified Campbell teaches the waxes include natural and synthetic waxes, where synthetic waxes include polyolefin waxes such as polyethylene wax (Hufschmid, [0016], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Campbell teaches the waxes have an average molecular weight of 200 to 11,000 g/mol (Hufschmid, [0016]-[0018], [0042]-[0048]). Modified Campbell’s range falls within the claimed range of not more than 15,000 g/mol, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Campbell teaches the fibers include organic and inorganic fibers (Campbell, [0095]-[0096]). Modified Campbell teaches the fibers are formed by melting, atomization, and then spraying through a nozzle (i.e., a melt spinning process and subsequent atomization) (Hufschmid, [0016]-[0021], [0029]-[0033]). “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113). Although modified Campbell does not discuss melt spinning and atomization, the fibers of the prior art reasonably appear to be either identical or only slightly different than the claimed product-by-process fibers formed by melt spinning and atomization, and therefore, absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claim 7 do not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Campbell teaches that fiber fillers having oil adsorbing property can be included in an amount of no greater than 10 weight percent of the total curable composition (Campbell, [0100]). Modified Campbell teaches that fiber fillers can be formed of polyethylene wax (Hufschmid, [0016]-[0017], [0042]). Modified Campbell’s range overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 30 wt%, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Campbell also teaches that fiber fillers not having oil adsorbing property can be included in an amount of 0.01 to 50 weight percent of the total curable composition (Campbell, [0100]). Modified Campbell’s range completely encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 to 30 wt%, and therefore, also establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Campbell teaches the curable structural adhesive mixture composition comprises toughening agents that include rubbers and acrylic resins (i.e., a rubber-containing adhesive) (Campbell, [0006]-[0009], [0058]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Campbell teaches the fiber blend having differing branched geometries, irregular (disordered) shapes, and high fibrillation yields a homogeneous blend with void volume structures (i.e., three-dimensional disordered volume structure networks with arbitrarily intermeshed fibers) (Johnson, [0013], [0034]-[0039]). Modified Campbell teaches highly fibrillated fibers in the fiber blend are characterized as having a degree of fibrillation at least about 55 to about 90 percent (Johnson, [0015]). Modified Campbell’s degree of fibrillation range overlaps the claimed range of at least 80%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Moreover, the ratio of highly fibrillated in the fiber blend can be about 5 to about 95 parts by weight per 100 parts of fiber blend (Johnson, [0018]). This range also overlaps the claimed range, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Campbell teaches the curable structural adhesive mixture comprises a toughening agent that includes solid rubber such as butadiene-nitrile rubber (Campbell, [0007], [0058]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Campbell teaches the solid rubber toughening agent is included in an amount of 5 to 55 weight percent (Campbell, [0065]). Modified Campbell’s range encompasses the claimed range of 5 to 25 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 15 and 17, modified Campbell teaches the curable structural adhesive mixture composition comprises an additional filler such as calcium carbonate (Campbell, [0097]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried calcium carbonate from the finite fillers disclosed by modified Campbell with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Campbell teaches the solid rubber toughening agent includes butadiene rubber (Campbell, [0058], [0060]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2013/0217804 A1), in view of Hufschmid (EP 2392630 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), and in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0244649 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Richter et al. (US 2005/0222311 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Campbell teaches the curable structural adhesive mixture composition as discussed above for claims 1 and 3. Modified Campbell teaches the waxes include natural and synthetic waxes, (Hufschmid, [0017], [0025]).
Modified Campbell remains silent regarding a natural wax selected from the group consisting of montan wax, carnauba wax, beeswax, and candelilla wax.
Richter, however, teaches fiber fillers and wax for polymer compositions, where the fiber fillers can be used in adhesive applications (Richter, [0002]-[0004], [0007]-[0039]). Richter teaches the fiber fillers include organic fibers including natural fibers (Richter, [0033]). Richter teaches the waxes include organic waxes such as montan waxes, and synthetic waxes such as polyolefin waxes (Richter, [0009]-[0020]).
Since modified Campbell and Richter both disclose polymer compositions comprising fibers and waxes and modified Campbell suggests utilizing natural and synthetic waxes to form fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Richter’s natural waxes (such as montan wax) to form modified Campbell’s fibers to achieve advantages in performance, favorable molding properties, increases in mechanical properties with regard to tensile and flexural stress, reduction of water absorption, and better dimensional stability as taught by Richter (Richter, [0007]-[0008]).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitson (US 2009/0312483 A1), in view of Hufschmid (EP 2392630 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), and in view of Functional Fillers for Plastics – Calcium Carbonate (Xanthos, Marino, Wiley-VCH, 2005, Ch 16, Pgs 271-284).
Regarding Claim 11, Kitson teaches an adhesive composition comprising (i) 100 parts by weight of a solid rubber adhesive component, (ii) 5-24 parts by weight of a liquid rubber component (i.e., a polymeric additive different from the solid rubber adhesive), (iii) 100-170 parts by weight of a tackifier, and other components such as a wax or filler agents (Kitson, Abstract, [0007]-[0020]).
Kitson remains silent regarding a wax being present in the form of a fiber and/or fiber bundle; and remains silent regarding the wax fiber and/or fiber bundle specifically functioning as an adsorbent for hydrophobic substances.
Hufschmid, however, teaches sprayed waxes in a form of fibrous material are suitable in applications as adsorbent materials for hydrophobic liquids (Hufschmid, [0001], [0011], [0013]-[0016], [0021]-[0025]). Hufschmid teaches the waxes include natural and synthetic waxes, where synthetic waxes include polyolefin waxes (Hufschmid, [0016], [0025]). Hufschmid teaches the waxes are spray products formed from melting and spraying the polyolefin waxes through a nozzle to form a fibrous matted product (i.e., a fiber bundle forming one or more volume structures with one another), where the fibrous matted product is formed solely of the polyolefin wax (Hufschmid, [0016]-[0021], [0029]-[0033]). Hufschmid’s fibrous material/fibrous matted product is formed via a consistent process, and therefore, the fibrous material/fibrous matted product is considered to have a same and consistent physical structure other than having different lengths and different diameters with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Since Kitson and Hufschmid both disclose utilizing wax materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Hufschmid’s polyolefin wax fibers and fiber bundles as Kitson’s wax material to yield a fiber-containing adhesive composition that exhibits high hydrophobic liquid binding capacity and adsorbent properties for numerous environmentally harmful substances as taught by Hufschmid (Hufschmid, [0011], [0013]-[0016]).
Modified Kitson remains silent regarding a filler agent being calcium carbonate.
Xanthos, however, teaches calcium carbonate is a common and well-known additive filler for polymeric materials (such as rubbers and ABS) that can provide cost reduction, improved modulus, improved impact strength, improved ductility, improved tensile strength, and improved dimensional stability, while being non-hazardous and non-toxic (Xanthos, Pgs 271, 275, 277-279).
Since modified Kitson suggests including other components such as filler agents and Xanthos discloses calcium carbonate as a well-known additive filler for polymeric materials such as rubbers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Xanthos’ calcium carbonate into modified Kitson’s rubber-containing composition to yield an adhesive that can achieve cost reduction, improved modulus, improved impact strength, improved ductility, improved tensile strength, and improved dimensional stability, while being non-hazardous and non-toxic as taught by Xanthos (Xanthos, Pgs 271, 275, 277-279).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitson (US 2009/0312483 A1), in view of Hufschmid (EP 2392630 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), and in view of Richter et al. (US 2005/0222311 A1).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Kitson teaches an adhesive composition comprising (i) 100 parts by weight of a solid rubber adhesive component (required by claim 20), (ii) 5-24 parts by weight of a liquid rubber component (i.e., a polymeric additive different from the solid rubber adhesive), (iii) 100-170 parts by weight of a tackifier (i.e., a further filler), and other components such as waxes and filler agents (Kitson, Abstract, [0007]-[0020]). Kitson’s liquid rubber component (polymeric additive) content range (5/[100+5+170]*100 = 1.8 wt%; 24/[100+24+100]*100 = 10.7 wt%; 1.8-10.7 wt%) overlaps the claimed range of 5-25 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Kitson teaches the liquid rubber component can be polybutadiene (Kitson, [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried polybutadiene as the liquid rubber component from the finite number of options disclosed by Kitson with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143; Kitson, [0016]).
Kitson remains silent regarding a wax containing filler being present in the form of a fiber and/or fiber bundle and being made solely from the wax.
Hufschmid, however, teaches sprayed waxes in a form of fibrous material are suitable in applications as adsorbent materials for hydrophobic liquids (Hufschmid, [0001], [0011], [0013]-[0016], [0021]-[0025]). Hufschmid teaches the waxes include natural and synthetic waxes, where synthetic waxes include polyolefin waxes (Hufschmid, [0016], [0025]). Hufschmid teaches the waxes are spray products formed from melting and spraying the polyolefin waxes through a nozzle to form a fibrous matted product (i.e., a fiber bundle), where the fibrous matted product is formed solely of the polyolefin wax (Hufschmid, [0016]-[0021], [0029]-[0033]). Hufschmid’s fibrous material/fibrous matted product is formed via a consistent process, and therefore, the fibrous material/fibrous matted product is considered to have a same and consistent physical structure other than having different lengths and different diameters with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Since Kitson suggests including other components such as filler agents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Hufschmid’s polyolefin wax fibers and fiber bundles as a filler agent in Kitson’s adhesive to yield a composition that exhibits high hydrophobic liquid binding capacity and adsorbent properties for numerous environmentally harmful substances as taught by Hufschmid (Hufschmid, [0011], [0013]-[0016]).
Modified Kitson remains silent regarding the wax fiber filler agents being included in the adhesive composition in an amount of 0.1-30 wt%.
Richter, however, teaches fiber fillers coated with wax for polymer compositions, where the fiber fillers can be used in adhesive applications (Richter, [0002]-[0004], [0007]-[0039]). Richter teaches the fiber fillers include organic fibers including natural fibers (Richter, [0033]). Richter teaches the waxes include organic waxes such as montan waxes, and synthetic waxes such as polyolefin waxes (Richter, [0009]-[0020]). Richter teaches the wax-coated fiber fillers are added in an amount of 1-99 wt% to a thermoplastic or thermoset polymer composition such as a rubber composition (Richter, [0036]-[0038]). Richter’s wax-coated fiber fillers content range overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-30 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Since modified Kitson and Richter both disclose rubber polymer compositions comprising fillers and waxes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added modified Kitson’s wax fiber filler agents in an amount that renders obvious the claimed range according to Richter’s guidance to yield a composition that achieves advantages in performance, favorable molding properties, increases in mechanical properties with regard to tensile and flexural stress, reduction of water absorption, and better dimensional stability as taught by Richter (Richter, [0007]-[0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, does not disclose a polyurethane-based or an acrylate-based adhesive having all of the limitations of claim 21 including independent claim 19 and intervening claim 20.
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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782