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 Interpretation
The word “interpolymer” has the following definition from pages 7-8 of the specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: please put a period (“.”) at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 claims 1-4, the words set in italic are generally not standard patent claim formatting. The examiner suggests changing the words in italic to standard non-italic type. The examiner also suggests changing “component a” to read “the first interpolymer” and “component b” to read “the second interpolymer”
Regarding claims 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12, the examiner suggests deleting “(component a)”, “(component b)”, “(component c)”, “(component d) and “(component e)” as the parentheses can confuse the reader if the limitations are mandatory or not.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner suggests replacing “component a and b” with “the first and second interpolymer”
Regarding claim 10, the examiner suggests replacing “component c” with “the wax” and “component b” with “the second interpolymer”
Regarding claim 13, the examiner suggests replacing “components a, b, c and d” with “the first interpolymer, the second interpolymer, the wax and the tackifier”
Regarding claim 13, there is no antecedent basis for components c and d as this claim depends upon claim 1 and claim 1 does not have those two components.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “at least one component” renders the claim confusing because does this mean the individual components (i.e. component a) or does it mean something else? The examiner suggests replacing it with a synonym such as “at least one part” or “at least one element”.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al (US 2007/0135563) in view of Karjala et al (WO 2007/078697).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7, Simmons teaches an adhesive (Abstract) composition comprising the following components:
5 to 95 weight percent of a polymer mixture comprising ([0041]:
30 to 97 weight percent of an ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer which has a density of 0.850-0.920 g/cm3 ([0042)]
3 to 70 weight percent of a second ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer having a density of 0.91 to 0.970 g/cm3 ([0043])
Given these amounts the ratio of the first to the second can be calculated to range from 30:70 to 97:3 (23.3 to 0.03) which overlaps the claimed range.
However, Simmons fails to teach the recited melt viscosities of these interpolymers.
Karjala teaches ethylene interpolymers (Abstract) for use in adhesive applications (page 1, lines 20-30). Karjala teaches that ethylene interpolymers can be ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymers (page 9, lines 15-20) and can be used in a blend of two interpolymers (page 7). The interpolymers have melt viscosities from 1 to 30,000 cP (mPas) at 177C (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interpolymers of Simmons have the melt viscosities as taught by Karjala. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using interpolymers with the correct melt viscosities for adhesive applications (Karjala, page 1).
Regarding claim 2, Simmons teaches that the densities of the first and second polymer differ by at least 0.01 g/cm3 ([0046]), therefore, the density ratio of the second interpolymer and the first interpolymer will overlap the claimed range. For example, the 2nd interpolymer can have a density of .92 and the the 1st interpolymer can have a densite of 0.88 and then the ratio would be 1.04 which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 5-6, Simmons teaches that both the first and second ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymers are ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymers ([0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Simmons teaches that the composition further contains a wax ([0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Simmons teaches that component C, the wax is present in the amount from 0 to 90 weight percent ([0046]) and the amount of the second interpolymer is calculated to be 3 to 70 % ([0043]) of 5 to 95 weight percent ([0041]). Therefore, the amount of the wax to the second interpolymer can be calculated to overlap the recited range.
Regarding claim 11, Simmons teaches that the composition further contains a tackifier ([0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Simmons teaches that the composition further contains a plasticizer ([0045]) which can be an oil ([0124]).
Regarding claim 13, Simmons teaches that the amount of the two interpolymer components (a and b) make up from 5 to 95 weight percent of the composition ([0041]). The wax (component c) is present in the amount from 0 to 90 weight percent ([0045]) and the tackifier (component d) is present in the amount from 0 to 95 weight percent ([0044]). Therefore, the sum of these components can be calculated to range from 5 to 100 percent by weight of the entire composition.
Regarding claim 14, while modified Simmons does not explicitly exemplify the inventive composition with the recited melt viscosity, it does teach that it is appropriate for use in hot melt adhesives ([0040]). Because of this application and the fact that the prior art teaches all the elements of the claimed invention and each of the polymer within the blend has melt viscosities within the claimed range of the melt viscosity of the blend itself, the above composition taught by the prior art would inherently have the recited melt viscosity. One can turn to Table 5 of Simmons as guidance which shows that hot melt adhesives have a melt viscosity of that fall well within the claimed range of 400 to 5000 mPas.
Regarding claim 18-19, while modified Simmons does not explicitly exemplify the inventive composition with the recited PAFT and SAFT values, it does teach that it is appropriate for use in hot melt adhesives ([0040]). Because of this application, the above composition taught by the prior art would inherently have the recited PAFT and SAFT values. One can turn to paragraphs [0203] and [0204] of Simmons as guidance which shows that hot melt adhesives have SAFT and PAFT values much greater than the recited lower limits of 70C and 50C respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Simmons teaches an article comprising at least one component from the composition of claim 1 (Abstract and examples).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al (US 2007/0135563) in view of Karjala et al (WO 2007/078697) and Cerk et al (US 2016/0108157) with evidence provided by Ma et al (US 2021/0198473).
The discussion regarding Simmons and Karjala in paragraph 7 above is included here by reference.
Regarding claim 9, Simmons teaches that waxes, such as Fischer-Tropsch waxes ([0126]) are appropriate, however, fails to teach that this wax has the recited melt viscosity.
Cerk teaches an ethylene/alpha-olefin composition (Abstract) for use in adhesives ([0098]) and incorporates a wax such as Sasolwax H1 ([0101]). As evidenced by Ma, Sasolwax H1 has a melt viscosity from 6-10 mPas at 135 C (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the was of Simmmons be the Sasolwax H1 as taught by Cerk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using the preferred wax in ethylene/alpha-olefin compositions (Cerk ([0101]).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al (US 2007/0135563) in view of Karjala et al (WO 2007/078697) with evidence provide by Tripathy et al (US 2015/0112014).
The discussion regarding Simmons and Karjala in paragraph 7 above is included here by reference.
Regarding claims 15-17, while modified Simmons does not explicitly exemplify the inventive composition with the recited fiber tear values, it does teach that it is appropriate for use in hot melt adhesives ([0040]). Because of this application, the above composition taught by the prior art would inherently have the recited fiber tear values. One can turn to paragraph [0139] of Simmons which teaches that the hot melt adhesive can be used in bookbinding applications with paper substrates. Tripathy provides evidence in paragraph [0117] that good adhesion to paper is indicated at fiber tear values greater the 60% at temperatures which range from -18 C to room temperature.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiPiShan et al (US 2018/0127564).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-6, LiPiShan teaches the following composition comprising:
An anhydride functionalized ethylene-based polymer that has a density from 0.855 to 0.900 g/cc and a melt viscosity at 177 C from 1000 to 50,000 cP (mPas) (Abstract). This functionalized polymer is an ethylene/alpha olefin interpolymer and further copolymer ([0027]) and reads on the recited component b. The functionalized ethylene-based polymer is present in the composition from 1 to 75 % by weight ([0017] and [0019])
An ethylene-based polymer ([0032]) which can be an ethylene/alpha olefin interpolymer and further copolymer ([0032]) which has a density from 0.855 to 0.89 g/cc ([0033]) and this reads the recited component a.
LiPiShan teaches that the ratio of the ethylene-based polymer and the anhydride functionalized ethylene-based polymer ranges from 1/1 to 6/1 ([0034]).
LiPiShan teach that the melt viscosity of the anhydride functionalized ethylene-based polymer to the ethylene-based polymer can be 1.0 ([0036]) and therefore, the ethylene-based polymer can have the same melt visocisty as the anhydride functionalized-ethylene based polymer, 1000 to 50,000 cP (mPas).
Chen fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited invention. However, Chen does disclose each of the components of the composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compositions suggested by Chen, including the claimed composition. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Chen to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would be nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764