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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on February 25, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-17, 21-23, and 30-35 are pending in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 8-9, 12-15, 17, 21, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2009/0110925 A1) in view of Kumar (US 2015/0361374 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 21, and 31-32: Fukuda discloses a hot melt adhesive composition [0001]. The hot melt adhesive composition comprises a maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene wax [0015], wherein the maleic anhydride groups may be grafted on to the wax [0045]. Fukuda discloses the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene wax is an adduct of waxlike crystalline polypropylene having a softening point of 120 to 170°C [0033]. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a maleic-anhydride modified polypropylene wax with an overlapping melting temperature and would have been motivated to do so since Fukuda teaches this melting temperature is acceptable to achieve the disclosed invention.
However, Fukuda does not disclose the depolymerized polypropylene wax is depolymerized. Kumar teaches catalytic depolymerization of polymeric materials with [Fe-Cu-Mo-P]/Al203 (Abstract, [0006]). Kumar teaches the polymeric material includes mixed polypropylene waste (recycled plastics) [0024]. The polymeric material may be converted to prepare waxes [0007]. The melting point of the wax is from 75 to 170°C which overlaps the range per the teachings of Fukuda [0033]. Fukuda and Kumar are analogous art since they are both from the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene waxes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an adduct of the polypropylene wax of Kumar and maleic anhydride in the hot-melt adhesive formulation of Fukuda, and they would have been motivated to do so because the polypropylene wax of Kumar is inexpensive and environmentally friendly because it utilizes waste plastics as a feedstock [0004].
Regarding claim 2: Fukuda discloses the polypropylene-ethylene copolymer present in the hot melt adhesive may be a block copolymer (olefinic block copolymer) [0022-0023].
Regarding claims 8, 12, and 34-35: Fukuda discloses the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene wax is a tackifier (an aliphatic derivative) [0031]. Fukuda teaches that the composition may include other tackifiers, such as aliphatic and aromatic tackifiers [0032].
Regarding claims 9, 13, and 33: Fukuda discloses an antioxidant (stabilizer) at 0.3-3 wt% [0034]. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping amount of the stabilizer because there is significant overlap disclosed by Fukuda.
Regarding claims 14-15: Fukuda discloses from 2 to 40 wt% of the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene wax tackifier [0031].
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 2009/0110925 A1) in view of Kumar (US 2015/0361374 A1), as evidenced by Kanderski et al (US 2016/0002508 A1).
Fukuda and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Fukuda is silent to the viscosity of the wax at 190°C.
Kanderski teaches that polyolefin waxes generally have a viscosity of under 500 cps at 190°C [0012]. Therefore, the polypropylene waxes taught by Fukuda and Kumar likely have a viscosity within the claimed range.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 2017/0290945 A1) in view of Kumar.
Regarding Claims 1 and 21: Hanson discloses a hot-melt adhesive composition containing a polypropylene wax [0005] that has a softening temperature of greater than 130°C [0008]. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polypropylene wax with an overlapping melting temperature and would have been motivated to do so since Hanson teaches this melting temperature is acceptable to achieve the disclosed invention.
However, Hanson is silent to the polypropylene wax being depolymerized. Kumar teaches catalytic depolymerization of polymeric materials with [Fe-Cu-Mo-P]/Al203 (Abstract, [0006]). Kumar teaches the polymeric material includes mixed polypropylene waste (recycled plastics) [0024]. The polymeric material may be converted to prepare waxes [0007]. The melting point of the wax is from 75 to 170°C which overlaps the range per the teachings of Hanson [0008]. Hanson and Kumar are analogous art since they are both from the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene waxes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polypropylene wax of Kumar to the hot-melt adhesive formulation of Hanson, and they would have been motivated to do so because the polypropylene wax of Kumar is inexpensive and environmentally friendly because it utilizes waste plastics as a feedstock [0004].
Regarding Claim 2: Hanson discloses an amorphous poly-alpha-olefin [0023] and a styrene block copolymer [0040].
Regarding Claims 8, 12, and 14: Hanson discloses a tackifier, such as an aromatic resin, an aliphatic resin, a cyclic resin, a mixed aromatic and aliphatic resin, and a rosin derivative [0035] that is present in an amount of 15-45 wt% [0037], with a specific example containing 26 wt% (Table 2).
Regarding Claims 9 and 13: Hanson discloses an anti-oxidant stabilizer [0041].
Regarding Claim 10: Hanson discloses a paraffin wax and a Fisher Tropsch wax [0038].
Regarding Claim 15: Hanson discloses that the polypropylene wax is present in an amount of 2-10 wt% [0008].
Regarding Claims 22-23: Hanson discloses a scaffold polymer (amorphous polyolefin [0023], styrene block copolymer [0040]), a tackifier [0035], and an antioxidant [0041]. Hanson further discloses that the tackifier is present at 15-45 wt% [0037], with a specific example containing 26 wt% (Table 2), and that the polypropylene wax is present at 2-10 wt% [0008].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Kumar as applied to claim 9 above as evidenced by Halley (2009. Chemorheology of Polymers - From Fundamental Principles to Reactive Processing. Cambridge University Press).
Hanson and Kumar disclose a hot-melt formulation as cited above in claim 9. Hanson discloses the antioxidant includes IRGANOX 1010 [0041]. Per the teachings of Halley, IRGANOX 1010 stabilizes polypropylene at 280°C (p. 155, Optimum stabilizer levels). It would be expected that IRGANOX 1010 is efficient for temperatures up to 300°C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Fukuda in view of Kumar:
Applicant makes reference to the previously filed Declaration of March 29, 2024, which asserts that the combination of Fukuda and Kumar is inappropriate because Fukuda requires a maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene wax, whereas the PP wax of Kumar is not modified with maleic anhydride. While this is true, modifying the wax of Kumar with MA functional groups would be a matter of routine experimentation. The rejection above has been modified to clarify this argument.
The Declaration and arguments further argue that properties of the wax, such as molecular weight distribution and what functional moieties are present, is influenced by the manufacturing method of the wax, and that the method taught by Kumar would result in such a substantially different wax that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have an expectation of success when adding it to the composition of Fukuda. However, Kumar teaches the catalytically depolymerized wax as a direct substitution for conventional waxes (see para. 0002-0003); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding it to a hot melt adhesive composition as a replacement for more conventional waxes, and they would be motivated to do so because of the lower cost and environmental friendliness of the wax of Kumar.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Hanson in view of Kumar:
Applicant argues that properties of the wax, such as molecular weight distribution and what functional moieties are present, is influenced by the manufacturing method of the wax, and that the method taught by Kumar would result in such a substantially different wax that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have an expectation of success when adding it to the composition of Fukuda. However, Kumar teaches the catalytically depolymerized wax as a direct substitution for conventional waxes (see para. 0002-0003); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding it to a hot melt adhesive composition as a replacement for more conventional waxes, and they would be motivated to do so because of the lower cost and environmental friendliness of the wax of Kumar.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
