DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on February 3, 2026 (“amendment”) in response to the Office action mailed on November 20, 2025 (“previous OA”) have been fully considered.
Support for claim 1 amendment “from 60 to 90 parts by mass of a styrene block copolymer (A1)” can be found in paragraph 0067 of the published application. Support for new claims 9-15 can be found in paragraphs 0033, 0068, and 0085 of the published application.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 USC112(b), as set forth in the previous OA is withdrawn. Further, in view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US 6531544 B1) and as evidence by product data sheet of Escorez™ 5400 from SOHGHAN Plastic Technology Co. Ltd, as set forth in the previous OA is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, a new rejection under 35 USC 103 over Vaughan et al. (US 6531544 B1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 20160040047 A1), and as evidenced by product data sheet of Escorez™ 5400 from SOHGHAN Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., is introduced.
In view of the amendment, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is introduced.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, insert “hot melt” before “adhesive” in order to provide consistency with the recitation “hot melt adhesive” in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, this claim recites from 10 to 40 parts by mass of a styrene block copolymer (A2). The specification fails to provide support for this limitation. The specification discloses that the block copolymer component (A2) is preferably 67-86 parts by mass, and more preferably 70-80 parts by mass. See paragraph 0067 of the published application. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide support for the aforementioned claim recitation.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US 6531544 B1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 20160040047 A1) and as evidenced by product data sheet of Escorez™ 5400 from SOHGHAN Plastic Technology Co. Ltd.
As to claims 1 and 6, Vaughan discloses a hot melt adhesive (HMA) composition for assembly of disposable absorbent articles (disposable product) (abstract and column 1, lines 5-15).
Further, as to claim 1, the HMA of Vaughan comprises a blend of styrene block copolymers (copolymer of vinyl aromatic hydrocarbons and conjugated diene) comprising a first block copolymer and a second block copolymer, wherein the first block copolymer (thermoplastic block copolymer A2) is a styrene isoprene styrene (SIS) block copolymer having styrene content of about 30 wt % or less (column 3 line 65 to column 4, line 10), wherein the second block copolymer is (thermoplastic block copolymer A1) is SIS or styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) with a styrene content of about 30 wt% of greater (thermoplastic block copolymer A1) (column 4, lines 20-25). Moreover, as to claim 1, from the disclosure in Vaughan as set forth previously, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “styrene” of the block copolymer is vinyl aromatic hydrocarbon and “butadiene or isoprene” of the block copolymer is conjugated diene. Moreover, Vaughan also discloses that wide variety of block copolymers including a radial block copolymer can also be used in the HMA (column 2, lines 65-67).
Further, as to claim 1, Vaughan discloses a HMA containing a block copolymer (SIS) with styrene content of 44% (Example 2), which is within the claimed styrene content of 35-50% by mass in claim 1. Moreover, the HMA of Vaughan further includes another block copolymer (SIS) with styrene content of 29% (Example 2), which is within the claimed styrene content of more than 10% by mass and less than 35% by mass in claim 1. Further, as to claim 1, Vaughan discloses a block copolymer having styrene content of 30 wt% of more (column 4, lines 20-23), which overlaps with the block copolymer (A1) having styrene content of from 35-50% by mass. Moreover, Vaughan discloses a further block copolymer having styrene content of about 30 wt% or less (column 4, lines 5-10), which overlaps with the block copolymer (A2) having a styrene content of more than 10% by mass and less than 35% by mass.
Further, as to claim 1, Vaughan discloses that the HMA includes at least one tackifying resin (column 4, line 35-40). Moreover, Vaughan discloses that tackifying resins useful in the invention include “resins derived from renewable resources [interpreted as natural resin by the examiner] such as rosin derivatives including wood rosin, tall oil, gum rosin as well as rosin esters and natural and synthetic terpenes, and derivatives of such…100°C or higher.” (column 4, lines 50-65). Further, Vaughan discloses that for block copolymers having unsaturated butadiene midblocks, rosin derivatives such as rosin esters and hydrogenated styrenated terpene resins are preferred (column 5, lines 5-10).
Based on the above, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select at least one tackifier of Vaughan including natural resin tackifier such as the resins derived from renewable resources, motivated by the desire to form the hot melt adhesive of Vaughan and Vaughan desires use of such tackifier resins in formation of the HMA.
As to claim 1 limitation of the natural resin (B1) amount of 20 parts by mass or more based on 100 parts by mass of the tackifying resin (B), Vaughan does not explicitly disclose this limitation. However, Vaughan discloses that the HMA comprises at least about 50 wt% of tackifying resin (column 4, lines 45-51). Given that Vaughan as set forth previously discloses that at least one tackifying resin is included in the HMA and the at least one tackifying resin includes natural resins (e.g. rosin and its derivatives), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the amount of one tackifying resin that is more than 20 parts by mass relative to the 100 parts mass of the tackifying resin (B) in order to form the HMA with suitable tack (column 4, lines 35-45 of Vaughan).
As to claim 1, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Vaughan is that Vaughan is silent as to disclosing the amount of styrene block copolymers (A1) (60-90 parts by mass) and the amount of styrene block copolymer (A2) (10-40 parts by mass), each amount based on 100 parts by mas total of the styrene block copolymers (A1) and (A2).
Inoue discloses a HMA for disposable products such as diapers (0001). The HMA of Inoue comprises a thermoplastic block copolymer (A) comprising 40-80 parts by weight, and preferably 50-70 parts by weight of a block copolymer (A1) having a styrene content of from 35-45% by weight (0018, 0034), and from 10 to 60 parts by weight, preferably 25-50 parts by weight, and more preferably 30-45 parts by weight of a block copolymer (A2) having a styrene content of from less than 30% by weight (0050-0051). Inoue further discloses that the amounts of (A1) and (A2) in the aforementioned range enables further improvement in adhesiveness to a polyolefin substrate, creep resistance, and applicability at low temperature, and thus the HMA becomes suitable for use in disposable products (0034, 0050).
The claimed range of 60-90 parts by mass of (A1) overlaps or lie within the range disclosed by Inoue (40-80 parts by weight or 50-70 parts by weight) such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the claimed range of 10-40 parts by mass of (A2) overlaps or lie within the range disclosed by Inoue (10-60 parts by weight, 25-50 parts by weight, or 30-45 parts by weight) such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the amounts of styrene block copolymer (A1) and styrene block copolymer (A2) as claimed and as rendered obvious from Inoue, motivated by the desire to form a HMA with an improvement in adhesiveness to a polyolefin substrate, creep resistance, and applicability at low temperature, so that the HMA becomes suitable for use in disposable products.
As to claim 2, Vaughan discloses rosin esters (column 4, lines 50-55).
As to claims 3 and 4, Vaughan discloses that the HMA includes at least one tackifier (column 4, lines 35-40). Therefore, more than one tackifiers are included in the HMA of Vaughan. Further, Vaughan discloses petroleum resin such as Escorez 5400 tackifier resin which is hydrogenated dicyclopentadiene resin (Example 2). Further, while Vaughan does not explicitly mention softening point of Escorez 5400, a product data sheet of Escorez 5400 discloses that this resin has softening point of 103.4°C.
As to claims 9 and 10, Vaughan discloses plasticizer such as paraffinic oil and napthelenic oil (column 5, lines 10-15 and lines 30-33).
As to claim 11, Vaughan discloses that various additives are added to the HMA (column 5, lines 20-55).
As to claims 13 and 14, Vaughan does not explicitly disclose the amount of natural resin tackifier B1 per 100 parts by mass of the tackifying resin B. However, Vaughan discloses natural tackifier resin such as resins derived from renewable resources such as rosin derivatives including wood rosin, tall oil, gum rosin as well as rosin esters and natural and synthetic terpenes, and derivatives of such…100°C or higher.” (column 4, lines 50-65). Further, Vaughan discloses that the tackifier resin amount can be varied from about 40 wt% to about 80 wt% (column 4, lines 45-50). Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of a tackifier such as a natural resin including the claimed, motivated by the desire to form a HMA having suitable tack.
As to claim 15, , Vaughan does not explicitly disclose the amount of plasticizer per 100 parts by mass of the tackifying resin B. However, Vaughan discloses that the plasticizer amount can be varied at amounts ranging up to 40 wt% (column 5, lines 40-45). Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of plasticizer including the claimed, motivated by the desire to form a HMA having tack and flexibility.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US 6531544 B1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 20160040047 A1) and as evidenced by product data sheet of Escorez™ 5400 from SOHGHAN Plastic Technology Co. Ltd., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sitnam (US 5185009).
As to claim 7, Vaughan discloses disposable product containing an elastic material (column 6, lines 40-45).
Vaughan is silent as to disclosing a biodegradable plastic.
Sitnam is cited to show that it is recognized in the art of disposable products such as diapers to use biodegradable materials such as biodegradable plastics (see abstract and claims) in order to reduce generation of human waste in the environment (column 1, lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to form a disposable product (e.g. diaper) containing biodegradable plastic, motivated by the desire to form environmentally friendly products that reduce human waste.
Vaughan is silent as to disclosing a rubber thread.
Inoue is cited to show that it is recognized in the in the art of disposable products (e.g. diaper) to use a hot melt adhesive with a rubber thread (0001, 0005, and 0079).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide a disposable product (e.g. diaper) containing an elastic material such as a rubber thread, motivated by the desire to use the HMA of Vaughan with such disposable product and to incorporate elasticity (stretchability) in such product.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US 6531544 B1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 20160040047 A1) and as evidenced by product data sheet of Escorez™ 5400 from SOHGHAN Plastic Technology Co. Ltd, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatfield et al. (US 6184285 B1).
Vaughan is silent as to disclosing claim 12.
Hatfield discloses a hot melt adhesive for disposable articles such as diapers (abstract). The adhesive of Hatfield comprises a blend of styrene isoprene copolymer containing at least about 25 wt% styrene and styrene butadiene block copolymer containing at least about 25 wt% styrene, a compatible tackifying resin, and at least one plasticizer (abstract). Further, Hatfield discloses a HMA containing total of 22 wt% of styrene block copolymers (11.0 wt% STEREON 840A and 11.0 wt% VECTOR 4411D) and 57.5 wt% of tackifier Escorez 5600 (Table 1, Example 1). Therefore, Hatfield discloses 38 wt% of the block copolymer [(22/57.5) * 100 = 38] per 100 wt% of tackifier, which is within the claimed range of 30-80 parts by mass.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed amount of block copolymer (A), given that such amount is recognized in the art as workable amount in order to form a hot melt adhesive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the amendment have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2012139120A1 discloses a polyolefin based hot melt adhesive containing a solid plasticizer
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
March 5, 2026