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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 25-31 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “wherein it comprises” must be amended to –wherein the composition--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is further objected to because of the following informalities: “a tackifying resin” should instead be –the tackifying resin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 22 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is indefinite as the recitation of “the polymer components” is unclear. It is not clear if the claim is intending to recite that each of the first polymer component and the second polymer component individually has the claimed viscosity or if the claim is reciting the combination of first and second polymer components together has the claimed viscosity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (EP 2756830 A1) in view of Beckman et al. (US PGPub 2016/0067116) (and with respect to instant claim 22 as evidenced by the LCY Chemical Brochure (K Messe Dusseldorf, www.k-online.de, 2022)).
Regarding claim 19, Williams teaches a hot melt adhesive comprising i) 1-30 wt% of a first triblock copolymer, ii) 1-30 wt% of a second triblock copolymer, iii) 20-90 wt% of at least one tackifying resin, and iv) 15-80 wt% of at least one plasticizer (abstract; [0016]; [0028]). The amount ranges of i) and ii) of Williams meet the instantly claimed ratio of 1:1 first to second polymer; further the amounts of the plasticizer and i)+ii) of Williams substantially overlaps with and renders taught instant 2.6:1 ratio plasticizer to polymer content.
Williams further teaches the i) first triblock copolymer is a linear triblock based on styrene ([0020]; [0030]-[0031]) and is selected from commercially available products such as KRATON G1650 ([0031])(instant first polymer; instant hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer; note: instant original specification, pg5, states that KRATON G1650 is a hydrogenated linear styrene triblock copolymer as claimed).
Williams further teaches the ii) second triblock copolymer is a linear triblock based on styrene ([0021]; [0032]-[0033]) and is selected from commercially available products such as KRATON G1760 ([0033])(note that Kraton products sold under the G line are hydrogenated styrene based triblock copolymers).
Williams teaches the second triblock copolymer is a linear triblock based on styrene but does not specifically teach a diblock content. However, Beckman teaches similar hot melt adhesive compositions comprising one or more preferably hydrogenated and linear ([0040]; [0048]) styrene block copolymers ([0033]-[0034]), a tackifying agent and a plasticizer (abstract; [0024]-[0025]; [0030]). Beckman further teaches it is advantageous to use a combination of two styrene block copolymers, which can be present in a 1:1 ratio ([0043]). Beckman further teaches that the styrene block copolymers can be pure triblock copolymers containing no di-block or may also include a portion of greater than 30 wt% di-block and teaches combinations of pure and di-block containing triblock copolymers ([0047]; [0047]; [0048]; Table 2, ex15)(instant second polymer component having di-block content from 10-90%). Beckman and Williams are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely hot melt adhesives, using a combination of styrene based triblock copolymers, which are applicable to nonwovens. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the triblock copolymer having a di-block portion of Beckman as the second triblock copolymer of Williams and would have been motivated to do so as Beckman teaches combining pure triblock styrene based copolymers with a styrene based triblock having a content of di-block is a suitable combination to obtain a hot melt adhesive having excellent viscosity for in-line applications, suitable hysteresis properties for application to non-woven substrates, and good adhesion ([0007] ;[0016]; [0026]-[0029]; Tables 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 20-21, Williams in view of Beckman render obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. As noted above Williams teaches the first linear styrene based triblock copolymer is the commercial product KRATON G1650, an SEBS triblock copolymer ([0031]). Williams teaches the second styrene based triblock copolymer is preferably an SEPS type ([0033]). Beckman further teaches the di-block containing styrene based triblock copolymer is a styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer ([0048]) and further teaches SIS, SEB, SEBS, SEPS, SEEPS types ([0041]).
Regarding claim 22, Williams in view of Beckman render obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. As noted above Williams teaches the first linear styrene based triblock copolymer is the commercial product KRATON G1650 ([0031]). The instant original specification states that this product will have the desired viscosity (instant original specification, pg5). Beckman does not specifically state the solution viscosity of GLOBALPRENE 3545 in a 10% by weight toluene solution at 30°C (note the LCY Chemical Brochure of 2022 evidences GLOBALPRENE 3545 has a solution viscosity in 25 wt% toluene solution at 23°C of 160 cP (pg2); substantially close to the claimed value at a different concentration/temperature). As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicants to show otherwise (see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 23-24, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. As noted Williams teaches the product KRATON G1650, an SEBS triblock copolymer, having a styrene content of 29% ([0031]). Williams teaches the second triblock copolymer is also styrene based (a preferred SEPS type having 21% polystyrene content [0033]). Beckman further teaches the di-block containing styrene based triblock copolymer is a styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer having 45 wt% styrene([0048]) and teaches the block copolymers selected should have an average styrene content of at least about 25 wt% ([0042).
Regarding claim 25, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. Williams invites the inclusion of further additives ([0036]; [0038]) for the purpose of modifying properties, such as tack, color, odor, etc. but does not specifically teach a further styrene block copolymer. However, Beckman teaches combinations the styrene block copolymers may be suitably selected including SB, SBS, SI, SEB, etc. ([0041]) in order to obtain a desired average styrene content ([0042]; examples). At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include further styrene block copolymers in the hot melt adhesive of Williams as taught by Beckman and would have been motivated to do so as Williams invites further modifying additives and further as Beckman teaches combinations to obtain a desired average styrene content of the hot melt adhesive.
Regarding claims 26-27, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. Williams is silent as to the coefficient in variation of the peel strength depending on temperature (claim 26) or the add-on (claim 27). However, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the instant hot melt adhesive composition comprising the claimed first and second hydrogenated linear styrene block copolymers, tackifying resin, and plasticizer, present in the claimed amounts and having the claimed identities. The instant specification demonstrates that such a composition will have the claimed coefficient in variation of peel strength as claimed (instant original specification, pg12-13 and 18). It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where 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.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 28, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. Williams further teaches mixing the components to obtain the hot melt adhesives ([0056]).
Regarding claim 29, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. Williams neither teaches nor requires the presence of butyl rubber and therefore meets the instant claim limitation of ‘not comprising butyl rubber’.
Regarding claims 30-32, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. As noted above Williams teaches composition comprises i) 1-30 wt% of the first triblock copolymer (instant claim 30), ii) 1-30 wt% of the second triblock copolymer, iii) 20-90 wt% of the at least one tackifying resin (instant claim 31), and iv) 15-80 wt% of the at least one plasticizer (abstract; [0016]; [0028]). The amount ranges of the plasticizer and of i)+ii) of Williams substantially overlaps with and renders taught instant 2.6:1 to 10:1 ratio plasticizer to polymer content (instant claim 32).
Regarding claims 33-36, Williams in view of Beckman renders obvious the hot melt adhesive as set forth above. Williams further teaches the composition is a hot melt adhesive composition (instant an adhesive) and teaches the composition is suitable for continuously or discontinuously coating articles including plasters, bandages, feminine napkins, diapers, and medical devices, patches and electrodes, etc., where the substrate is a plastic film, a nonwoven or a textile material ([0041]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights