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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 38 & 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 38, said claim establishes the limitation of the plasticizer being present in amounts greater than the styrene block copolymer (Claim 38, lines 1-4). Independent base claim 37 discloses allowable percent-by-weight ranges for all components of the hot melt adhesive composition. The styrene block copolymer and plasticizer are allowed in amounts of 1.5-25 wt.% and greater than 30 wt.%, respectively (Claim 37, lines 1-6). Thus, claim 38 fails to further limit claim 37 and is therefore improper.
Regarding claim 55, said claim establishes the limitation of the hot melt adhesive composition of claim 54 comprising “…from 2 % by weight to 10% by weight of the styrenic block copolymer that comprises at least 55 % by weight styrene…” (Claim 55, lines 1-4). However, claim 54 (which claim 55 depends upon) establishes the limitation of “…from 1.5 % by weight to 25 % by weight of a hydrogenated styrenic triblock copolymer comprising greater than 55 % by weight styrene…” (Claim 54, lines 1-4). Thus, claim 54 requires the styrene content of said hydrogenated styrenic triblock copolymer to be greater than 55 wt.%. As claim 55 attempts to establish said styrene content to be at least 55 wt.%, said claim broadens to weight range instead of narrowing it, and is therefore improper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 37-44 & 47-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2013/0202787 A1).
Regarding claims 37-42, 47, 48 & 52-54, Hu teaches hot melt adhesive compositions suitable for use in garments or disposable articles such as diapers (Abstract). Hu discloses a composition comprising 5-20 wt.% of at least one styrene block copolymer having a styrene content greater than 40% and 30-70 wt.% of a tackifier (p. 6, Claims 1 & 2). Hu teaches the composition may also comprise a plasticizer, such as paraffinic oil or mineral oil, in amounts up to 30 wt.% (p. 3, [0024]).
Hu discloses hot melt adhesive compositions with polymer contents of 20-35 wt.% generally result in high viscosity, thus needing an application temperature of 325°F or greater (p. 1, [0002]). An embodiment of the invention is disclosed wherein the polymer content is in the range of 5-20 wt.% (p. 1, [0007]). The styrene block copolymers may be hydrogenated and provides an exemplary styrene block copolymer for this use disclosed as SBS or styrene-butadiene-styrene (p. 2, [0018]). Inventive embodiments disclosed by Hu demonstrated creep percentages ranging from 7.6% - 27.3% (p. 5, Table 1b, Samples 1-3).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The above disclosures contain teachings reading on all limitations established by claims 37-42, 47, 48 & 52-54.
Regarding claim 43, Hu discloses suitable tackifiers for the invention have a softening point above 25°C including polyterpene resins having softening points of up to 150°C and hydrocarbon resins having softening points up to 135°C (p. 2, [0020]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 44, Hu teaches combinations of two polymers such as hydrogenated SBS having a styrene content of greater than 40% (p. 2, [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a combination of two hydrogenated SBS polymers having a styrene content of greater than 40% based on this express suggestion. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 49, Hu provides disclosures teaching the limitations of the independent base claim 37, from which claim 49 depends. The crossover temperature of the instant claim 49 is a physical property inherent in the physical composition of claim 37. Chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claims 50 & 56, Hu discloses the desired viscosity of less than 8,000 cP (p. 1, [0016]), overlapping the claimed range of no greater than 5,000 cP. Hu teaches applying the inventive composition on a substrate at a temperature of 110°C-130°C (p. 1, [0013]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 51, Hu states esterified pentaerythritol resins may be used as the tackifier (p. 2, [0022]) providing an example thereof as Sylvalite RE100L, which abides by examples of said tackifier (Specification, p. 10, lines 20-23).
Claims 45 & 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2013/0202787 A1) in view of Gray et al. (US 10,759,978 B2).
Regarding claims 45 & 46, Hu teaches the composition may comprise a second polymer (p. 2, [0018]) but is silent on the composition comprising the single-site catalyzed polyolefin as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Gray teaches hot melt adhesive compositions (Abstract). Gray discusses benefits of hot melt adhesive compositions further comprising metallocene and single-site catalyzed polyolefins such as increased control over polydispersity, high comonomer incorporation rates in comparison to catalyst, as well as polymer structure and density. These catalysts can also be employed to target a fixed level of stereo-defects, allowing for more granular control of the composition’s overall properties (col. 2, lines 1-48). Examples thereof disclosed by Gray include poly-a-olefin copolymers &/or terpolymers of ethylene, propylene, 1-butene, 1-hexene, 1-octene, ethylene-propylene copolymers, ethylene-octene copolymers and/or the most preferred propylene/ethylene elastomers, available as Vistamaxx 6202, which is particularly preferred (col. 10, line 55 – col. 11, line 12). Vistamaxx 6202 abides by examples of said single-site catalyzed polyolefin (Specification, p. 14, line 30 – p. 15, line 10). Said catalyzed olefin elastomers are present in preferable range of 22-28 wt.% (col. 11, lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include anyone of the aforementioned examples of said metallocene single-site catalyzed polyolefins in the composition of Hu, as Gray teaches the advantages of hot melt adhesives further comprising such polyolefins. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Hu in view of Gray as detailed above results in a hot melt adhesive composition comprising 5-20 wt.% of at least one styrene block copolymer having a styrene content greater than 40%, 30-70 wt.% of a tackifier, up to 30 wt.% of a plasticizer, and 22-28 wt.% of the aforementioned single-site catalyzed polyolefins, reading on all limitations established by claims 45 & 46.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights