DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7; “a hot melt wetness indicator adhesive”) in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 1: The applicants are advised to add the term “and” after the claimed phrase “an aromatic hydrocarbon resin (C9)”. The applicants are also advised to replace the claimed “an MMAP” with “a MMAP”. The applicants are further advised to replace the claimed “the hot melt wetness indicator adhesive composition”. Moreover, the applicants are advised to replace the claimed “comprises any rosin resins” with the new phrase “comprise any rosin resins”.
As to Claims 2-7: They recite “according to any of the previous claims”. These claims are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper multiple dependent claim form. See MPEP § 608.01(n). For purposes of examination, these claims will be treated as being dependent on claim 1.
Moreover, as to claim 3, the applicants are advised to replace the claimed “colour” with “color”.
As to Claim 2: The applicants are advised to change the claimed “consists in” with the new phrase “consists of”.
As to Claim 4: The applicants are advised to change the claimed “consists in” with the new phrase “consists of” and also add the term “and” before the claimed “poly(vinyl acetate) (PVA)”.
As to Claim 5: The applicants are advised to add the term “and” before the claimed phrase “dimer or polymerized fatty acids or fatty acids derivatives”.
As to Claim 6: The applicants are advised to replace the claimed phrase “characterized by the surfactant component” with the new phrase “wherein the surfactant component”.
The applicants are also advised replace the claimed phrase “consisting in” with the new phrase “consisting of”, and replace the claimed term “comprised” with the new term “of”.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
5. Claim 1-7 are 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.
As to Claims 1-7: They recite, among other things, “hot melt wetness indicator adhesive”. Absent any definition or explanation from the present specification, it is not clear what constitutes the claimed phrase “hot melt wetness”. Thus, it is not clear how hot or how wet the adhesive is.
Moreover, there is no proper antecedent basis for “the hot melt wetness indicator adhesive composition” recited in claim 1, and thus, it is not clear whether the hot melt wetness indicator adhesive composition is referring to the adhesive mentioned in preamble of the claim, or something different/new.
Additionally, as to claim 3, it is not clear whether “a pH indicator” is referring to the same pH indicator recited in claim 1, on which it depends from, or an additional/new pH indicator.
Clarification in the next response by applicants will be helpful to better ascertaining the scope of these claims.
Accordingly, the scope of these claims is deemed indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/36177 (hereinafter referred to as “WO ‘177”) in view of Abba et al. (US 2007/0088116).
As to Claims 1-3 and 5-7: WO ‘177 discloses a hot melt wetness indicator adhesive composition (Page 1, lines 5-10), comprising 10-40% by weight an ethylene-alkylacrylate-acrylic acid terpolymer (which is encompassed by the claimed 5-60% by weight of a polymeric component) 0-20 wt. % of a plasticizer (which overlaps with the claimed 5-60 % by weight of a plasticizer component), 15-60 wt.% of a surfactant (which overlaps with the claimed 0.5-20% by weight of a surfactant), 0.01-0.5 wt% of a pH indicator or acid-base indicators which change color in response to a change in pH in the range of bromophenol blue where color of the adhesive transitions from yellow to blue in the presence of water (which is inclusive of the claimed 0.05-3% by weight of the pH indicator), and 0-2% by weight of an antioxidant (which overlaps with the claimed 0.5-10% by weight of an antioxidant component) (Page 5, lines 3-20). WO ‘177 also discloses that the surfactant includes nonionic surfactants having HLB less than 15 (Page 7, lines15-25), which overlaps with the claimed surfactant having a HLB of 3-20. WO ‘177 further discloses that the plasticizer includes liquid plasticizer at room temperature selected from saturated or unsaturated fatty acids (Page 8, lines 3-20) and the antioxidant includes phenolic antioxidants (Page 9, lines 5-30). Moreover, WO ‘177 broadly discloses using any and all types of tackifying resins, including those that are not rosin resins (Page 7, lines 1-15), thereby meeting the claimed negative limitation “does not comprise any rosin resins”.
However, WO ‘177 does not specifically mention the addition of an aromatic hydrocarbon resin (C9), including that having a MMAP cloud point superior to 70°C as required by the claims. It also does not specify the aromatic hydrocarbon resin (C9) consisting of a partially hydrogenated aromatic C9 hydrocarbon resin as required by present claim 2.
Nevertheless, Abba et al. disclose employing 15-70% by weight of a mid-block tackifying resin including partially hydrogenated aromatic C9 hydrocarbon resin having a MMAP cloud point of higher than 110 degrees Celsius (encompassed by the claimed MMAP cloud point superior to 70°C) to provide a hot melt adhesive with desired tackifying properties and good cohesion level (Paragraphs [0001], [0080] and [0112]).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an optimum or workable amount of the partially hydrogenated aromatic C9 hydrocarbon resin having the claimed MMAP cloud point taught by Abba et al. in the hot melt adhesive of WO ‘177, with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing the same with desired tackifying properties and good cohesion level.
Additionally, since WO ‘177 and Abba et al. would have suggested identical or substantially identical hot melt wetness indicator adhesive as those claimed for the reasons set forth above, the adhesive suggested by WO ‘177 and Abba et al. would also be capable of being partially soluble in aqueous solutions as required by the claims. See MPEP section 2145, II (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious”). See also MPEP section 2113.01 “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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.”
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/36177 (hereinafter referred to as “WO ‘177”) in view of Abba et al. (US 2007/0088116) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Colon et al. (US 4,743,238).
The disclosures with respect to WO ‘177 and Abba et al. in paragraph 6 are incorporated her by reference. However, they do not specifically mention using other types of polymeric component such as those recited in claim 4, i.e., water sensitive polymer selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymers.
Nevertheless, Colon et al. do disclose the use of water sensitive polymer selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymers for the purposes of obtaining hot melt wetness indicator adhesive having the ability to know quickly, by visual inspection, whether a substrate has become wet (Col. 2, lines 35-40 and Col. 3, lines 19-30).
Given the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the claimed water sensitive polymer selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymers taught by Colon et al. in the hot melt wetness indicator adhesive suggested by WO ‘177 and Abba et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the ability to know quickly, by visual inspection, whether a substrate has become wet.
Correspondence
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH J PAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5456. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 PM; M-F.
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.
/HANNAH J PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights