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 .
It is initially noted that Davis (US 8,623,480) is used in the subsequent rejections in light of Applicant’s submission that the storage modulus of the olefin-based polymers in Table 1 was incorrectly listed in the original specification provided on May 16, 2023. This submission, along with claim amendments and newly presented claims, necessitated the following rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 8,623,480, newly cited).
Davis is directed to a solventless adhesive composition comprising at least 55 weight % of a non-functionalized poly alpha olefin, such as REXTAC 2304, preferably between 5 weight % to about 30 weight % of a tackifying agent, and preferably between 3 weight % to about 25 weight % of a wax (e.g. paraffin wax, polyethylene wax, microcrystalline wax, Fischer-Tropsch wax) (Column 3, Lines 20-35 and Column 4, Line 45-Column 5, Line 47).
In terms of the transition temperature of said wax, each of the aforementioned waxes disclosed by JP ‘513 corresponds with an inventive wax as disclosed by Applicant in paragraph 27 of the originally filed specification. Davis also states that said wax demonstrates a softening point between 50°C and 150°C (Column 4, Lines 50-60). Given that the softening point is slightly greater than the glass transition point, it reasons that the glass transition temperature of the wax in Davis would fall between 80°C and 160°C as required by the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 4 and 13), while Davis is silent with respect to the mechanical properties (storage modulus) of the adhesive composition, a wide variety of solventless adhesive compositions taught by Davis would be expected to demonstrate storage modulus properties in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the materials and loadings disclosed by Davis are directly analogous to those identified by Applicant as resulting in the claimed storage modulus and thus, it reasons that the claimed storage modulus would be satisfied by Davis (materials and loadings appear to directly influence the claimed storage modulus). See the Table below.
Claimed composition
Composition taught by Davis
Olefin based polymer (e.g. REXTAC 2304)
45-100 weight %
55-90 weight %
Wax (e.g. polyolefin-based wax, microcrystalline wax, Fischer-Tropsch wax)
1-25 weight %
3-25 weight %
Tackifying agent
0-30 weight %
5-30 weight %
With respect to claims 2, 3, 11, and 12, Dabis discloses exemplary adhesive compositions formed with REXTAC 2304 (Table 1) and such corresponds with an inventive olefin-based polymer (thus it reasons that a storage modulus and melt viscosity in Davis would satisfy the claimed invention).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as detailed above, Davis teaches loadings that significantly overlap that required by the claimed invention. In fact, the claimed ranges fully encompass the ranges of Davis (any composition selected from the ranges in the Table above would satisfy the claimed invention).
As to claims 5 and 14, given that Davis teaches a multitude of waxes that mimic those identified by Applicant as being inventive, it reasons that the wax of Davis would demonstrate a transition heat in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, the claims are directed to an adhesive composition and given the extreme similarity between the claimed adhesive and that taught by Davis, it reasons that the adhesive composition of Davis would demonstrate properties that mimic those in a hypothetical assembly (assemblies described in claims 6 and 7 are akin to an intended use of the adhesive composition).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the adhesive composition of Davis preferably includes 3 weight % and 25 weight % of a wax, such as paraffin wax, polyethylene wax, microcrystalline wax, or Fischer-Tropsch wax.
As to claims 9 and 18, the solventless adhesive composition of Davis (a) is devoid of inorganic particles, (b) includes 55-90 parts of an olefin-based polymer having a melt viscosity less than 50,000 mPa-s at 177°C (REXTAC 2304), (c) includes 5-30 parts of at least one tackifier, and (c) includes 3-25 parts of at least one wax, such as paraffin wax, polyethylene wax, microcrystalline wax, or Fischer-Tropsch wax. The totality of these features is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention and such, the adhesive composition of Davis can be fairy charactered as a self-adhesive composition.
With respect to claim 10, REXTAC 2304 is disclosed by Davis and such corresponds with an inventive olefin-based polymer. Thus, it reasons that REXTAC 2301 would demonstrate a weight average molecular weight in accordance to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights