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 .
Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, given that the amended portion of current claim 1 now requires that the polyolefin (A) comprise at least two ethylene (co or homo)polymers, it is unclear from the claim limitations whether the later-recited homopolymer of ethylene and the ethylene-based polymer (A1) are required (to fill the at least two requirement), or if the at least two ethylene (co or homo)polymers requirement is filled via the polyolefin (A) comprising at least two different kinds of homo-polyethylene and/or at least two different kinds of ethylene-based polymer (s) (A1), or some other interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (US 2018/0282596 A1) in view of Yoshino et al. (JP 2007262211 A). Citations from Yoshino were taken from the machine translation, which was provided in a previous action.
Regarding claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8, claim 1 of Kusumoto teaches an aqueous dispersion comprising water and a resin component of composite particles (C) including an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer (A) (unsaturated carboxylic acid polymer (B)) and an acrylic polymer (B), which said ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer (A) (copolymer (b1)) has an ethylene content of 75 mass% or more (current claim 8) and which said acrylic polymer (B) comprises a (meth)acrylate content of 50 mass% or more.
Kusumoto also teaches that the acrylic polymer (B) comprises (meth)acrylate monomers ((meth)acrylic acid ester polymer (B2)) (para 0050-0054). Kusumoto further teaches that the aqueous dispersion comprises an adhesive layer (heat sealing layer) of a laminate comprising a substrate and the adhesive layer, which said substrate is, inter alia, aluminum foil (current claims 5-7) (para 0137-0140).
Kusumoto continues to teach that the aqueous dispersion also comprises two or more olefinic polymer(s) (D) (para 0124) such as, inter alia, homopolymers of ethylene and copolymers of ethylene (ethylene-based polymer (A1)) (para 0121).
Kusumoto is silent to the aqueous dispersion further comprises an amide-based wax (C) (current claim 1) in an amount of 0.15 to 3.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the olefinic polymer (D) and the composite particles (C) (current claim 2).
However, Kusumoto does instruct that the aqueous dispersion contains known additives (para 0133-0134), and that the inventive composition is conspicuously directed to adhesives demonstrating heat-sealing and anti-blocking properties (para 0004-0005, 0016, 0027, 0043, 0080, 0105, 0114, 0132, 0137, 0147-0149, 0154, 0156-0158).
Yoshino also teaches an aqueous dispersion having excellent heat sealability and blocking resistance (para 0006-0007), and comprising an olefinic-unsaturated carboxylic acid resin (A) and a fatty acid amide (B) (amide-based wax (C)) (para 0008). Yoshino also teaches that the aqueous dispersion comprises the stearic acid amide in an amount of 1 to 5 parts by weight per 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin (A) towards a balance of blocking resistance and heat sealability (para 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the aqueous dispersion of Kusumoto with the presently claimed amide-based wax, and in the presently claimed proportions, towards providing the resultant adhesive layer with the blocking resistance and heat sealability required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kusumoto teaches that the ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer (A) consists of (current claim 9) ethylene and the unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer, which said unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymer comprises one or two (at least one) of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid (current claim 10) (para 00190024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 5-10 over Kusumoto et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraph 6 of the action mailed 9/3/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully acknowledges the Applicant’s analysis and comparison of the heat-seal strength of inventive examples 8-16 versus those of examples 1-7. However, the Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the updated prior art rejection set forth above, wherein it is noted that, while the secondary Yoshino may only teach a single polyolefin resin (A), the primary Kusumoto invention further teaches that the disclosed olefinic polymer (D) comprising the aqueous dispersion comprises two or more of the listed polyolefins as acknowledges by the Applicant in the present arguments.
While Kusumoto does not specify that the inclusion of the two or more of the olefinic polymers is directed specifically towards adjusting the low-temperature heat sealability, Kusumoto does indeed teach the inclusion of such into the inventive compositions, and thus the presently claimed limitation requiring that the polyolefin (A) comprises two or more polyolefins is not obvious over Kusumoto, but is indeed anticipated by the primary reference.
It is significant to note that Kusumoto is directed to a heat sealing layer comprising the inventive aqueous dispersion (see, for example, para 0137 and 0148). The Examiner submits that, contrary to the Applicant’s statement that the composite particles (C) and the resin particles (E) (comprising the two or more olefinic polymers (D)) are distinct from each, there is nothing in the presently claimed invention that requires or suggests that the polyolefin (A) and the composite particles (B) are not also distinct from each other.
Lastly, the presently claimed invention recites that the polyolefin (A) comprises at least two kinds of polyolefins, and thus requires at least two of said polyolefins. The remaining recitations also recite only two polyolefins, one of which is a homopolymer of ethylene, and thus the claim language requires the homo-polyethylene (see also the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above.
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 FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 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, Alicia A 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 2/1/2026