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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection arguments on pages 6-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument beginning on page 6 that the system is ‘not a generic bonding apparatus, as it is specifically designed to work with a solid SEBS/TPU adhesive tape, which has a unique activation behavior’. The Applicant argues on page 7 that the system must ‘use low-temperature air’ to ‘bond stretch fabrics in curved geometries.
However, independent claims 5 and 12 do not contain any non-generic activation components to account for the unique activation behavior.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to adjust and optimize conventional activation equipment based on the material types worked upon. Heating applied by an air nozzle can be a result effective variable – to reduce heat to account for a SEBS/TPU material, one of ordinary skill in the art could: move the air nozzle further from the bonding materials, reduce the air temperature, and/or reduce heated air exposure time to the material by increasing roller speeds, etc.
The Applicant’s argument beginning on page 10 that the SEBS and plasticizer-free TPU in a solid tape is novel and non-obvious is moot, because the tape and its components as claimed are outside of the scope of patentable subject matter.
Essentially, independent claims 5 and 12 are citing: a bonding system, comprising a first roller… a second roller… and a heated air nozzle. The first roller of the system is performing an action on an adhesive tape (which comprises SEBS and TPU elements); therefore, the tape is a material worked upon and is not cited as a part of the system. The second roller of the system is performing an action on a fabric; therefore, the fabric is a material worked upon and is also not cited as a part of the system.
The claim objections from the previous office action have been corrected by amendment; the objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 6-11 & 15 are acknowledged.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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 5-11 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US3075868A), in view of Alper (US20110021103A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
5. An automatic continuous bonding system comprising: a first ‘driven’ roller for controlling which controls the speed and a tension of an adhesive tape, the adhesive tape comprising a styrene-ethylene- butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer blended with 5% to 20% by weight of an aromatic polyester thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU); a second roller for a speed and a tension of a fabric; and a heated air nozzle, the heated air nozzle generating heated air to melt the adhesive tape to the fabric passing between the first and second rollers.
With respect to claim 5, the prior art of Long teaches an automatic continuous bonding system comprising: a first ‘driven’ roller (Fig. 1, item 11) for controlling which controls the speed and a tension of a polymer plastic (Fig. 1, item A; [Col. 2, lines 7-9]); a second ‘driven’ roller (Fig. 1, item 13) for a speed and a tension of a fabric (Fig. 1, item B; [Col. 2, lines 9-12]); and a heated air nozzle, the heated air nozzle (Fig. 1, item 14) generating heated air to melt the polymer plastic into an adhesive tape to the fabric passing between the first and second rollers [Col. 2, lines 12-40].
Long is silent on the polymer plastic adhesive tape comprising a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer blended with 5% to 20% by weight of an aromatic polyester thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU).
However, inclusion of the material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. It is understood by the Examiner that the cited adhesive composition type is not critical for the use of the apparatus; therefore, the composition provides no limiting elements for patentability to the apparatus claims.
However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the composition elements cited in independent claim 5 will be examined.
The prior art of Alper teaches a hot melt adhesive composition [0029] comprising a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer [0030, 0038] blended with an aromatic polyester thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) [0026, 0058] at about 0% to 20% by weight [0034].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Alper teaches the claim 5 aromatic polyester thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) [0026, 0058] at about 0% to 20% by weight, as the Alper range overlaps the claimed range of 5% to 20% by weight. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the known hot melt adhesive composition comprising SEBS AND aromatic polyester thermoplastic polyurethane, taught by Alper, in place of the polymer plastic adhesive composition in the bonding apparatus taught by Long, to predictably obtain similar results of a substituted adhesive bonded to a fabric using the apparatus of Long, in view of Alper.
6. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 5 wherein the styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer comprises: a hardness range between 25 Shore A and 50 Shore A; and a melting range between 150°C and 170°C.
With respect to claim 6, Long, in view of Alper, is silent on the styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer comprises: a hardness range between 25 Shore A and 50 Shore A; and a melting range between 150°C and 170°C. these physical and thermal properties of the material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
7. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 5 wherein the adhesive tape further comprises a plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade with a hardness range of 50 Shore A to 70 Shore A.
With respect to claim 7, Long, in view of Alper, is silent on the adhesive tape further comprises a plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade with a hardness range of 50 Shore A to 70 Shore A. However, hardness is a physical property of a material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
8. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 7 wherein the plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade has a melting range of 100°C to 130°C.
With respect to claim 8, Long, in view of Alper, is silent on the plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade has a melting range of 100°C to 130°C. However, melting range is a thermal property of a material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
9. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 1 wherein the plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade allows continuous bonding of three-dimensional geometries and seams with curves.
With respect to claim 9, Long, in view of Alper, does not explicitly teach the plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade allows continuous bonding of three-dimensional geometries and seams with curves.
However, Long teaches the three-dimensional continuous bonded product curves along a roller after pressing and then curves the opposite direction onto a winding reel (Fig. 1, item 15); Alper teaches the substituted adhesive with general elastomeric fabrics in continuous or discrete forms, such a diaper application as an example.
Although inclusion of the material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the modified apparatus of Long, in view of Alper, could allow continuous bonding of three-dimensional geometries and seams with curves.
10. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 9, in which an adhesive blend grade, comprising of plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane and styrene-ethylene-styrene block copolymer, allows continuous bonding of three-dimensional geometries and seams with curves.
With respect to claim 10, Long, in view of Alper, does not explicitly teach an adhesive blend grade, comprising of plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane and styrene-ethylene-styrene block copolymer, allows continuous bonding of three-dimensional geometries and seams with curves.
However, Long teaches the three-dimensional continuous bonded product curves along a roller after pressing and then curves the opposite direction onto a winding reel (Fig. 1, item 15); Alper teaches the substituted adhesive with general elastomeric fabrics in continuous or discrete forms, such a diaper application as an example.
Although inclusion of the material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the modified apparatus of Long, in view of Alper, could allow continuous bonding of three-dimensional geometries and seams with curves.
11. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 9 wherein the plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade creates continuous bonding at glue line temperatures below 137°C and activation temperatures below 150°C.
With respect to claim 11, Long, in view of Alper, is silent on the plasticizer-free aromatic polyester-based polyurethane hotmelt adhesive grade creates continuous bonding at glue line temperatures below 137°C and activation temperatures below 150°C. However, bonding at glue line temperatures is a thermal property of a material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed, and does not impart patentability to the claims.
14. An automatic continuous bonding system comprising: a first roller for controlling a speed and a tension of an adhesive tape, the adhesive tape comprising a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer blended with 5% to 20% by weight of an aromatic polyether thermoplastic polyurethane; a second roller for a speed and a tension of a fabric; and a heated air nozzle, the heated air nozzle generating heated air to melt the adhesive tape to the fabric passing between the first and second rollers.
With respect to claim 14, the prior art of Long teaches an automatic continuous bonding system comprising: a first ‘driven’ roller (Fig. 1, item 11) for controlling which controls the speed and a tension of a polymer plastic (Fig. 1, item A; [Col. 2, lines 7-9]); a second ‘driven’ roller (Fig. 1, item 13) for a speed and a tension of a fabric (Fig. 1, item B; [Col. 2, lines 9-12]); and a heated air nozzle, the heated air nozzle (Fig. 1, item 14) generating heated air to melt the polymer plastic into an adhesive tape to the fabric passing between the first and second rollers [Col. 2, lines 12-40].
Long is silent on the polymer plastic adhesive tape comprising a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer blended with 5% to 20% by weight of an aromatic polyether thermoplastic polyurethane.
However, inclusion of the material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. It is understood by the Examiner that the cited adhesive composition type is not critical for the use of the apparatus; therefore, the composition provides no limiting elements for patentability to the apparatus claims.
However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the composition elements cited in independent claim 14 will be examined.
The prior art of Alper teaches a hot melt adhesive composition [0029] comprising a styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) block copolymer [0030, 0038] blended with an aromatic polyether thermoplastic polyurethane [0026, 0058] at about 0% to 20% by weight [0034].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Alper teaches the claim 14 aromatic polyether thermoplastic polyurethane [0026, 0058] at about 0% to 20% by weight, as the Alper range overlaps the claimed range of 5% to 20% by weight. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the known hot melt adhesive composition comprising SEBS AND aromatic polyether thermoplastic polyurethane, taught by Alper, in place of the polymer plastic adhesive composition in the bonding apparatus taught by Long, to predictably obtain similar results of a substituted adhesive bonded to a fabric using the apparatus of Long, in view of Alper.
15. The automatic continuous bonding system of claim 14 wherein the styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer comprises: a hardness range between 25 Shore A and 50 Shore A; and a melting range between 150°C and 170°C.
With respect to claim 15, Long, in view of Alper, is silent on the styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer comprises: a hardness range between 25 Shore A and 50 Shore A; and a melting range between 150°C and 170°C. However, these physical and thermal properties of the material or article acted upon by a structure (apparatus) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748