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 .
DETAILED ACTION
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
The examiner suggests deletion of “type of’ in line 2 of claim 6 and lines 1-2 of claim 12 since it would not add any special meaning.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102079911 B1 (Feb. 19, 2020) with Machine translation in view of Hirose (US 2020/0001579 A1 (Jan. 2, 2020), Machine translated JP 3935582 B2 (June 27, 2007) and/or CA 2902145 A1 (Oct. 02, 2014, partial).
KR teaches an adhesive for ostomy and adhesive tape of ostomy comprising the same in abstract and Fig. 1. Machine translated KR teaches the hot melt adhesive comprising a composite polymer matrix of an acrylic resin and a rubber resin in a first paragraph of page 4 meeting the recited thermoplastic hot melt adhesive of claim 1.
KR teaches an adhesive force reduction defined by General Formula 1 of at least 50% measured at 25oC and 0oC in claim 1 (See page 3 of Machine translation).
The instant invention further recites use of 23oC over 25oC for the General Formula 1 of KR. The 23oC and 25oC would be expected to yield a similar adhesive force since a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed, Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05.
The instant invention further recites a fatty acid metal salt over KR.
The fatty acid metal salt is known as a lubricant, a blocking resistance agent and a release agent in the art.
Hirose teaches a hot melt adhesive and employing other additives such as a higher fatty acid metal salt as a lubricant in lines 20-40 of a left column of page 8.
JP teaches a hot melt adhesive in [0013] and utilization of fatty acid metal salts in an amount of 0.01 to 20 parts by weight for the purpose of improving and blocking resistance in [0020].
CA teaches a higher fatty acid metal salts such as calcium stearate as a release agent at pages 82 and 83.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the art well known fatty acid metal salts taught by Hirose, JP and/or CA in KR since the hot melt adhesive utilizing the fatty acid metal salts as the lubricant, blocking resistance agent and a release agent are well known as taught by Hirose, JP and/or CA absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 2, JP teaches utilization of fatty acid metal salts in an amount of 0.01 to 20 parts by weight in [0020]. As to Hirose and CA, modification to an amount of the fatty acid metal salt in order to adjust releasability of the adhesive would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. When patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a prior art composition, such as a change in concentration or in temperature, or both, the burden is on Applicant to establish with objective evidence that the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new unexpected result. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Hirose, JP and CA teach a blend of the hot melt adhesive and metal salts in above discussed section.
Regarding claim 4, Machine translated KR teaches a Tg of 0oC or less at top of page 5 and -2oC in middle of page 6 which make claim 4 obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Woodruff, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, the calcium stearate taught by CA would meet claim 5. One ordinary skill in the art would have known that the fatty acid metal salts taught by Hirose and JP would encompass the recited various fatty acid metal salts of claim 5.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, JP teaches employing an inorganic filler such as zinc oxide (i.e., ceramic) in order to adjust releasability in an amount of 5 to 100 parts by weight or 20-80 parts by weight in [0018].
Regarding claim 8, Machine translated KR teaches the instant additives in a second full paragraph of page 5.
Regarding claim 9, KR teaches a room temperature adhesion of 0.27 to 0.55 kg/f/mm (25oC) in table of page 9 which would be expected to meet the recited at least 10 N/25 mm (25oC) inherently. Since PTO does not have equipment to conduct the test, it is fair to require applicant to shoulder the burden of proving that his material differs from those of KR. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Inherent anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 10, the above discussed hot melt adhesive of KR further comprising the fatty acid metal salt known as a lubricant, a blocking resistance agent and a release agent taught by Hirose, JP and CA would eb expected meet the recited adhesion reduction rate of at least 80% since the hot melt adhesive of KR further comprising the fatty acid metal salt would comprise the same components claimed.
Regarding claim 11, se Figure 1 of KR.
Regarding claim 12, Machine translated KR teaches employing at least one heat transfer particles in a base layer in a lower portion of page 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762