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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are mostly directed to Wang as the primary reference and argue that Wang does not teach a tackifier-free adhesive. That argument is persuasive. Turner US Patent Application Publication 2017/0165133, which provides a tackifer-free adhesive is now used as the primary reference as discussed below.
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.
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, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 21-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Turner US Patent Application Publication 2017/0165133.
As to claim 1, Turner teaches a hot melt adhesive composition comprising:
(a) an essentially amorphous high molecular weight propylene copolymer – where Turner teaches an amorphous polymer comprises an amorphous or random polymer comprising an alpha olefin co-polymer comprising major proportion of propene (Turner para. 0137,-0138, 0148) having a high molecular weight (para. 0146).
(b) a semicrystalline, single site-catalyzed, low molecular weight propylene copolymer- where Turner teaches preferred propene copolymers wherein the comonomer is ethylene, 1-butene, 1-hexene, or 1-octene. Turner teaches the hot melt adhesive formulations based on metallocene (single-site) polymerized semi-crystalline copolymers can eventually build sufficient crystalline content over time to achieve good cohesive strength in the formulation (Turner para. 0153), the semicrystalline polymers having a low molecular weight (para. 0158, 0164).
Turner does not specifically teach the first and second adhesive copolymers are single-site catalyzed. Turner does teach any conventional polymerization synthesis process may prepare the polyolefin copolymers. Turner teaches various polymerization methods and teaches, preferably using a single-site metallocene catalyst system (para. 0162). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to use the single-site metallocene catalysts since it is obvious to choose from among known solutions to solve a problem: In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is obvious to choose from among known solutions to a problem: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In thatinstance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try shows obviousness.
(c) polyisobutene – where Turner teaches the adhesive material may comprise a viscosity modifier such as a polyisobutylene polymer (paragraph 0163). Turner teaches the polyisobutylene combines easily with natural or synthetic rubbers, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and phenol-formaldehyde;
wherein the composition is tackifier-free - Turner teaches an absorbent article with an adhesive composition that may be made with substantially less than 20 wt. % or be substantially free of an effective amount of conventional tackifier material that can add any aspect of open time, substrate wetting or tack to the adhesive material, i.e., be substantially tackifier-free (paragraph 0136).
As to claim 2, Turner incorporates by reference (Turner para. 0148) Sustic USPN 5723546, who teaches the high molecular weight propylene copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of at least about 80,000 g/mol (Sustic col. 5, lines 58-65) and has a heat of fusion of at least about 20 J/g (Sustic col. 6, lines 41-48). Sustic teaches the low molecular weight propylene copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of at most about 60,000 g/mol and has a heat of fusion of at least about 20 J/g – where Sustic col. 5, line 17-20 teaches the LMW APAO (Low molecular weight amorphous polyalphaolefin) has a number average molecular weight of about 4,000 to 16, 000 g/mol, which meets the limitation of at most about 60,000 g/m. Sustic further teaches the LMW APAO has a heat of fusion ranging from 0.1 to 20 J/g (col. 5, lines 20-22).
As to claim 4, Turner teaches the high molecular weight propylene copolymer is a copolymer of propylene and a co-monomer selected from the group consisting of ethylene and a C4 — C12 alkylene (Turner paragraph 0139).
As to claim 5, the polyisobutene has a number average molecular weight of at least about 750 g/mol (Turner paragraph 0164).
As to claim 6, Turner teaches the high molecular weight propylene copolymer (see the rejection of claim 1, supra) is present in an amount of between about 10% and about 60% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition - where Turner teaches the amorphous polymer present in a range of 20-80% by weight which contains the range of about 10% and about 60% by weight (Turner Table 1).
As to claim 7, the composition of claim 1 further comprising a 1-butene-based copolymer polymer (Turner paragraph 0141,0163).
As to claim 8, the 1-butene-based copolymer comprises a butene-ethylene copolymer (Turner paragraphs 0143, 0163).
As to claim 10, the 1-butene-based copolymer is present in an amount of between about 5% and about 40% by weight based on the total weight of the composition (Turner paragraph 0163).
As to claim 11, the composition of claim 1 further comprising a plasticizer (Turner paragraph 0165).
As to claim 13, the plasticizer is present in an amount of between about 5% and about 60% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition (Turner Table 1).
As to claim 15, the composition of Turner does not contain a wax as there is no mention of a wax in the disclosure.
As to claim 16, Turner incorporates by reference (Turner para. 0148) Sustic USPN 5723546, who teaches the molecular weight of the high molecular weight propylene copolymer is at least two times the molecular weight of the low molecular weight propylene copolymer - where Sustic teaches the LMW APAO polymer has a number average molecular weight of about 4,000 to 16,000 g/mol and the HMW APAO has weight average generally over 100,000, preferably between about 130,000 to 230,000, and more preferably between about 150,000 to 200,000 g/mol (Sustic col. 5, lines 61-65).
As to claim 17, Turner incorporates by reference (Turner para. 0148) Sustic USPN 5723546, who teaches the heat of fusion of the low molecular weight propylene copolymer is at least two times the heat of fusion of the high molecular weight propylene copolymer – where Sustic teaches the high molecular weight polymer having a heat of fusion of about 15 to 60 J/g, and a low molecular weight polymer having a heat of fusion of about 0.1 to 20 J/g (Sustic Abstract, col. 4, lines 16-24).
As to claims 21-23, Turner teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Turner does not teach the claimed stress yield, stress retained, and the retained viscosity. Turner does teach an adhesive composition having the claimed components and useful as a hot melt adhesive used in the construction of absorbent articles. Therefore, since the prior art has met the structural requirements of the claim, Turner obviously includes an adhesive composition capable of achieving the claimed test results. One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the stress yield, stress retained, and retained viscosity necessary for a certain application.
As to claim 24, Turner teaches a method of making a laminate comprising the steps of: applying the hot melt adhesive composition of claim 1 in a molten state to a primary substrate (Turner paragraph 0174); and
mating a secondary substrate to the primary substrate by contacting the secondary substrate with the adhesive composition (Turner paragraphs 0174).
As to claim 26, Turner teaches an absorbent core comprising a first layer and a second layer (Turner paragraphs 0104, 0121, 0129 0134), wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer comprises superabsorbent polymers, and the first layer and the second layer are adhered to each other by a hot melt adhesive composition of claim 1 and the adhesive composition adheres the superabsorbent polymers within the absorbent core (Turner paragraphs 0135).
As to claim 27, Turner teaches a disposable hygiene article comprising the absorbent core of claim 26 (Turner paragraph 0136).
As to claim 28, Turner teaches the composition of claim 1 further comprising an amorphous polyalpha olefin in an amount of less than 40% by weight – where Turner teaches the amorphous polymer comprises an alpha olefin copolymer (Turner para. 0137) and the amorphous polymer is present in a range of 20-80% by weight which contains the range of less than 40% by weight (Turner Table 1).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Turner US Patent Application Publication 2017/0165133 in view of Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0233686.
As to claim 3, Turner teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Turner does not teach the high molecular weight propylene copolymer has a polydispersity index of less than about 5, and the low molecular weight propylene copolymer has a polydispersity index of less than about 5. Wang, from the same field of endeavor, hot melt adhesives, teaches an adhesive composition comprising as the base polymer components a blend of an essentially amorphous, single site-catalyzed, high molecular weight propylene copolymer and a semicrystalline, single site-catalyzed, low molecular weight propylene copolymer (Wang para. 0055). Wang teaches the adhesive composition has a polydispersity index of less than 5 (Wang para. 0055). Wang teaches the polymers prepared by SSC catalysts (single-site catalysts for α-olefin polymerization (Wang para. 0022) have a narrow molecular weight distribution with a poly dispersity index (PDI) from about 2 to about 4 (Wang para. 0055). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the composition of Turner with a PDI of less than 5, since both Turner and Wang have compositions using amorphous high molecular weight propylene copolymer and semicrystalline low molecular weight propylene copolymer blends prepared by SSC catalysts.
As to claim 14, Turner/Wang teach the composition does not contain an amorphous polyalpha olefin (Wang paragraphs 0020-0021)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over f Turner US Patent Application Publication 2017/0165133 and in view of Okazaki et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0148616.
As to claim 20, Turner teaches the present invention substantially as claimed but do not teach the composition has an elongation at break of at least about 350%. Okazaki teaches a hot melt adhesive composition for nonwoven materials and thermoplastic films useful in disposable hygiene products as a construction adhesive (Okazaki abstract). Okazaki teaches the adhesive has an elongation at break of at least 400%, more preferably at least 500% and most preferably at least 550% (paragraph 0024). Okazaki teaches the polymer components have a low modulus, meaning that it can stretch to a relatively high extent before it breaks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the invention of Turner with the claimed elongation at break for the benefits taught in Okazaki.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781