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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (corresponding to claims 16-28) in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/20/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document (see attached copy of the IDS).
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 21, line 4 delete “1’500” and insert therein - - 1,500 - - for form; and
in claim 27, line 2 delete “10’000 – 150’000” and insert therein - - 10,000 – 150,000 - - for form.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 17, 23, 24, and 28 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrases “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the limitations following the phrases are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the limitation(s) following the phrase are not considered part of the claimed invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “the aqueous dispersion(s)”, and the claim also recites “, the aqueous acrylate dispersion or the aqueous polyurethane dispersion and the aqueous acrylate dispersion together”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the feature introduced by the narrower language is considered merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required. It is suggested to delete “, the aqueous acrylate dispersion or the aqueous polyurethane dispersion and the aqueous acrylate dispersion together” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the limitation(s) following the phrase are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the limitation(s) following the phrase are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “in step a)” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “in step a)” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the rotating dosing roller” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “a dosing roller” in line 2 and insert therein - - a rotating dosing roller - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
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.
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 16, 17, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Block et al. (NL 2015698) in view of SABA (“Why rollable adhesives provide a more efficient mattress production process”). Alternatively, claims 16, 17, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABA in view of de Block.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 25, de Block discloses a method for bonding substrates, comprising the steps of: applying a dispersion adhesive to an area to be bonded of a first substrate by roller application; contacting the area to be bonded of the first substrate with a second substrate to be bonded (and regarding claim 25) whereby the first substrate and/or the second substrate is a foam; whereby the dispersion adhesive (is a water-based adhesive) contains an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and/or an aqueous acrylate dispersion (including combinations thereof) and a plasticizer (and regarding claim 17) whereby the plasticizer is esters of benzoic acid (Page 1, lines 4-13 and Page 3, lines 6-36 and Page 5, lines 11-26).
As to the limitation in claim 16 of “pressing the two substrates so that a bonded composite of the first and second substrate is obtained”, de Block does not expressly teach pressing the two substrates wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of method for bonding substrates (including of foam) using a water-based adhesive to press the two substrates to effectively transfer the applied adhesive to the surfaces to be bonded and create the bond of final strength to hold the substrates together (so that a bonded composite of the first and second substrate is obtained) as evidenced by SABA (see under “How does a roll coating system work?”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method for bonding substrates taught by de Block includes pressing the two substrates as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to effectively, conventionally, and predictably obtain the bonded composite of the first and second substrate as evidenced by SABA.
As to the limitation in claim 16 of “so that the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive”, the bonded composite taught by de Block (and de Block as modified by SABA) can be, i.e. is configured to be, separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive such as by directly fracturing (e.g. mechanically or chemically) the adhesive. Further, the dispersion adhesive taught by de Block contains an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and/or an aqueous acrylate dispersion and a plasticizer including whereby the plasticizer is esters of benzoic acid (and further including in a proportion as claimed see claim 20 below) so that because the dispersion adhesive taught by de Block contains the same materials as in the instant invention the bonded composite taught by de Block as modified by SABA is considered to be configured so that the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive the same as is true in the instant invention.
Alternatively regarding claims 16 and 25, SABA (see under “How does a roll coating system work?”) discloses a method for bonding substrates, comprising the steps of: applying a water-based adhesive to an area to be bonded of a first substrate by roller application; contacting the area to be bonded of the first substrate with a second substrate to be bonded (and regarding claim 25) whereby the first substrate and/or the second substrate is a foam; and pressing the two substrates so that a bonded composite of the first and second substrate is obtained.
As to the limitations in claim 16 of “a dispersion adhesive” and “so that the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive; whereby the dispersion adhesive contains an aqueous polyurethane and/or an aqueous acrylate dispersion and a plasticizer” and claim 17, SABA does not require any particular water-based adhesive wherein de Block (described above in full detail and similarly bonding a foam substrate such as for a mattress) teaches a water-based adhesive (that is a dispersion adhesive containing an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and/or an aqueous acrylate dispersion and a plasticizer whereby the plasticizer is esters of benzoic acid) that has a low glass transition temperature, prolonged storage, improved stability and for low temperature use (Page 7, lines 12-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the water-based adhesive taught by SABA is a dispersion adhesive containing an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and/or an aqueous acrylate dispersion and a plasticizer whereby the plasticizer is esters of benzoic acid (and including the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive as discussed above) not only as a simple substitution of one known water-based adhesive to yield predictable results but as has a low glass transition temperature, prolonged storage, improved stability and for low temperature use as taught by de Block.
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 23, de Block teaches the proportion of plasticizer, based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, is in the range of 2-50 wt. % (Page 3, lines 28-31), and the dispersion adhesive may have various optional components at 0.001 wt. % or more (Page 6, lines 12-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a proportion of plasticizer, based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, in de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block is 5 - 50 wt. % (and therein whereby a proportion of plasticizer is adjusted in such a way that a composite is produced which can be separated under formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive the same as the same proportion in the instant invention results in the same) and whereby based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, a proportion of the aqueous dispersion(s) in the adhesive is in total 50 - 95 wt. % as suggested by de Block and including in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 19, 26, and 27, neither de Block nor SABA expressly teach the pressing pressure during pressing or the amount dispersion adhesive applied wherein SABA (see under “Pressure” and “Thermal heat”) teaches pressure is effective to transfer the applied adhesive to the surfaces to be bonded and create the bond of final strength to hold the substrates together (i.e. amount of dispersion adhesive transferred and pressure is a result-effective variable) so that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate and the pressing pressure during pressing as taught by de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block is determined as a function of effectively transferring an amount of the dispersion adhesive to the surfaces to be bonded and create the bond of final strength to hold the substates together (such as whereby the pressing pressure during pressing is 10,000 - 150,000 N/m2 and whereby a pressing force applied during pressing is adjusted in such a way that a composite is produced which can be separated under formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive and whereby the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate in an amount of 10 - 100 g/m2) as directed to by SABA wherein there is no showing of record that the claimed ranges are critical and neither de Block nor SABA teach away from the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 24, de Block teaches the dispersion adhesive contain the aqueous polyurethane dispersion and the aqueous acrylate dispersion (i.e. combinations thereof see Page 3, lines 6-32) and further the adhesive has a glass transition temperature of -80 to -50 oC and a pH value in the range of 7-13.5 to form an improved adhesive composition (Page 2, line 32 to Page 3, line 5 and Page 6, line 35 to Page 7, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive taught by de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block contain aqueous polyurethane dispersion and aqueous acrylate dispersion as taught by de Block (whereby the ratio between the aqueous polyurethane dispersion and the aqueous acrylate dispersion is 1:9 - 9:1 wherein de Block is not limited by ratio encompassing greater than 0:less than 10 - less than 10:greater than 0 it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05) and further including the aqueous acrylate dispersion - comprises an acrylate polymer - has a pH value in the range of 2 - 9 and the acrylate polymer has a glass transition temperature Tg of 0 to -50oC (further regarding the pH and Tg in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05) as forms an improved adhesive composition as also taught by de Block.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Block and SABA as applied to claims 16, 17, and 19-27 above, and further in view of Sloan (U.S. Patent 8,815,040).
Regarding claim 18, de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 18 except for a specific teaching the dispersion adhesive contains glycerine in addition. de Block (Page 6, line 18) teaches the dispersion adhesive contains 0.1-15 wt. % thickener in addition without expressly teaching glycerine wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of dispersion adhesive including containing aqueous polyurethane dispersion the dispersion further contain glycerine in addition as the thickener as evidenced by Sloan (Column 3, lines 52-67 and Column 7, lines 35-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive taught by de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block contains glycerine in addition and whereby a proportion of glycerine, based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, is 5 - 25 wt. %, it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, as is the conventional and predictable thickener well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Sloan.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Block and SABA as applied to claims 16, 17, and 19-27 above, and further in view of scribd (“Dispercoll U 84” product datasheet) or covestro (“Dispercoll U 54” product datasheet).
Regarding claim 21, de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 21 except for a specific teaching whereby the aqueous polyurethane dispersion - is an anionic aqueous polyurethane dispersion; - has a pH value in the range of 6 - 9; - at 23°C has a viscosity of < 1,500 mPa·s, whereby the viscosity is measured according to standard M092-ISO 2555:2018 with spindle L2 at 30 revolutions per minute; and - has a minimum film-forming temperature of > 1 °C wherein de Block teaches Dispercoll (see the examples) as the aqueous polyurethane dispersion, Dispercoll a conventional and commercially available aqueous polyurethane dispersion for producing water-based adhesive which includes Dispercoll U 84 or Dispercoll U 54 having the claimed properties as evidenced by scribd (see pages 1 and 2) or covestro (see pages 1 and 2) (and as also evidenced by the same Dispercoll polyurethane dispersions used in the instant invention). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the aqueous polyurethane dispersion taught by de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block is Dispercoll such as Dispercoll U 84 or Dispercoll U 54 (i.e. - is an anionic aqueous polyurethane dispersion; - has a pH value in the range of 6 - 9; - at 23°C has a viscosity of < 1,500 mPa·s, whereby the viscosity is measured according to standard M092-ISO 2555:2018 with spindle L2 at 30 revolutions per minute; and - has a minimum film-forming temperature of > 1 °C) as a simple substitution of conventional and commercially available aqueous polyurethane dispersion for producing water-based adhesive known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by de Block and further scribd or covestro.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Block and SABA as applied to claims 16, 17, and 19-27 above, and further in view of Kraus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0306916).
Regarding claim 26, de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 26 except for a specific teaching of the amount dispersion adhesive applied to the first substrate wherein conventional and predicable amount dispersion adhesive applied to the first substrate (in a method for bonding substrates including foam) is 130 - 150 g/m2 (wet) (Paragraph 0127) with the dispersion adhesive 40% to 85% by weight water (Paragraph 0043) suggesting the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate in an amount of 10 - 100 g/m2 (dry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate as taught by de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block in an amount of 10 - 100 g/m2 (wet or dry) as is the conventional and predictable amount as evidenced by Kraus and including in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Block and SABA as applied to claims 16, 17, and 19-27 above, and further in view of Simmler et al. (U.S. Patent 6,319,352).
Regarding claim 27, de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 27 except for a specific teaching of the pressing pressure during pressing wherein conventional and predicable pressing pressure during pressing includes 10,000 - 150,000 N/m2 (at least 0.1 N/cm2 and including to bond foam substrates using dispersion adhesive) as evidenced by Simmler (Abstract and Column 3, lines 17-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pressing pressure during pressing in de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block is 10,000 - 150,000 N/m2 as is the conventional and predictable pressing pressure as evidenced by Simmler (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Block and SABA as applied to claims 16, 17, and 19-27 above, and further in view of Barberan Latorre (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0226569) and/or Ariznavarreta Esteban et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0174227).
Regarding claim 28, de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 28 except for a specific teaching of how the roller application is performed. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of coating adhesive by roller application in a step a) during roller application the adhesive (2 of Barberan Latorre) is applied between a rotating dosing roller (50 of Barberan Latorre and 101 of Ariznavarreta Esteban) and a rotating application roller (10 of Barberan Latorre and 100 of Ariznavarreta Esteban) using the rotating dosing roller and the rotating application roller and the first substrate (1 of Barberan Latorre and Ariznavarreta Esteban) in the area to be bonded is brought into contact with the application roller for applying the adhesive, so that the adhesive is applied to the area to be bonded by the application roller as evidenced by Barberan Latorre (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0022-0023) and/or Ariznavarreta Esteban (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a step a) during roller application as taught by de Block as modified by SABA and SABA as modified by de Block the dispersion adhesive is applied between a rotating dosing roller and a rotating application roller using the rotating dosing roller and the rotating application roller and the first substrate in the area to be bonded is brought into contact with the application roller for applying the dispersion adhesive, so that the dispersion adhesive is applied to the area to be bonded by the application roller as is conventional and predictable coating of adhesive by roller application well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Barberan Latorre and/or Ariznavarreta Esteban.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus in view of SABA and optionally further de Block. Alternatively, claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABA in view of Kraus and optionally further de Block.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 25, Kraus discloses a method for bonding substrates, comprising the steps of: applying a dispersion adhesive to an area to be bonded of a first substrate; contacting the area to be bonded of the first substrate with a second substrate to be bonded (and regarding claim 25) whereby the first substrate and/or the second substrate is a foam; pressing the two substrates so that a bonded composite of the first and second substrate is obtained; whereby the dispersion adhesive (is a water-based adhesive) contains an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and a plasticizer (and regarding claim 17) whereby the plasticizer is dipropyleneglycol dibenzoate (Paragraphs 0002, 0016, 0017, 0079, and 0099).
As to the limitation in claim 16 of “so that the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive”, the bonded composite taught by Kraus can be, i.e. is configured to be, separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive such as by directly fracturing (e.g. mechanically or chemically) the adhesive. Further, the dispersion adhesive taught by Kraus contains an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and a plasticizer including whereby the plasticizer is dipropyleneglycol dibenzoate (and further including in a proportion as claimed see claim 20 below) so that because the dispersion adhesive taught by Kraus contains the same materials as in the instant invention the bonded composite taught by Kraus is considered to be configured so that the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive the same as is true in the instant invention.
As to the limitation in claim 16 of applying the dispersion adhesive to the area to be bonded of the first substrate “by roller application”, Kraus teaches preferable application by spray process (Paragraph 0099). Kraus does not explicitly teach away from roller application. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of method for bonding substrates (including of foam) using a water-based adhesive to apply the adhesive to the area to be bonded of a first substrate by roller application including as can be applied evenly in a controlled, uniform, precise and consistent manner including a number of advantages in comparison to spray process including economic, efficiency, and safety (including without overspray) benefits as taught by SABA (see under “How does a roll coating system work?” and under “Benefits of roll coating versus spray gun”) and optionally further wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art dispersion adhesive containing an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and a plasticizer is applied by spray process or roller application as evidenced by de Block (Page 3, lines 6-32 and Page 5, lines 11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the dispersion adhesive to the area to be bonded of the first substrate as taught by Kraus is by roller application not only as a simple substitution of one application process for another to yield predictable results but the adhesive can be applied evenly in a controlled, uniform, precise and consistent manner including a number of advantages in comparison to spray process including economic, efficiency, and safety as taught by SABA and optionally further in view of de Block.
Alternatively regarding claims 16 and 25, SABA (see under “How does a roll coating system work?”) discloses a method for bonding substrates, comprising the steps of: applying a water-based adhesive to an area to be bonded of a first substrate by roller application; contacting the area to be bonded of the first substrate with a second substrate to be bonded (and regarding claim 25) whereby the first substrate and/or the second substrate is a foam; and pressing the two substrates so that a bonded composite of the first and second substrate is obtained.
As to the limitations in claim 16 of “a dispersion adhesive” and “so that the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive; whereby the dispersion adhesive contains an aqueous polyurethane and/or an aqueous acrylate dispersion and a plasticizer” and claim 17, SABA does not require any particular water-based adhesive wherein Kraus (described above in full detail and similarly bonding foam substrates) teaches a water-based adhesive (that is a dispersion adhesive containing an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and a plasticizer whereby the plasticizer is dipropyleneglycol dibenzoate) that is organochlorine- and epoxide-free, satisfies the requirements of the Nordic Ecolabel, and features high initial strengths, sufficiently long open time, and good heat resistance (Paragraph 0003 and 0013) and optionally further wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art dispersion adhesive containing an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and a plasticizer is applied by spray process or roller application as evidenced by de Block (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the water-based adhesive taught by SABA is a dispersion adhesive containing an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and a plasticizer whereby the plasticizer is dipropyleneglycol dibenzoate (and including the bonded composite can be separated with the formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive as discussed above) not only as a simple substitution of one known water-based adhesive to yield predictable results but as is organochlorine- and epoxide-free, satisfies the requirements of the Nordic Ecolabel, and features high initial strengths, sufficiently long open time, and good heat resistance as taught by Kraus and optionally further in view of de Block.
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 23, Kraus teaches the proportion of plasticizer is in the range of 20% to 40% by weight (Paragraph 0021) and the dispersion adhesive optionally further contains tackifier in the range of 0% to 10% by weight (Paragraph 0022) and/or coagulant in the range of 0.1% to 50% by weight (Paragraph 0102 and such as is optional in non-spray process paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a proportion of plasticizer, based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, in Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block is within 5 - 50 wt. % (and therein whereby a proportion of plasticizer applied is adjusted in such a way that a composite is produced which can be separated under formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive the same as the same proportion in the instant invention results in the same) and whereby based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, a proportion of the aqueous dispersion(s) in the adhesive is in total 50 - 95 wt. % as suggested by Krause and including in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 19 and 27, neither Kraus nor SABA expressly teach the pressing pressure during pressing wherein Kraus (Paragraph 0099) teaches pressure by pressing increases the strength of the bond (i.e. pressure is a result-effective variable) so that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pressing pressure during pressing as taught by Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block is determined as a function of the desired increase in strength of the bond (such as whereby the pressing pressure during pressing is 10,000 - 150,000 N/m2 and whereby a pressing force applied during pressing is adjusted in such a way that a composite is produced which can be separated under formation of a cohesive fracture in the adhesive) as directed to by Krause wherein there is no showing of record that the claimed range is critical and neither Kraus nor SABA teach away from the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 only further limits claim 16 conditionally and in the event the dispersion adhesive contains an aqueous acrylate dispersion (see claim 16 and “and/or”) so that because Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block teach the dispersion adhesive contains aqueous polyurethane Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block teach the limitation of claim 22 (if applicants intend claim 22 to expressly and positively further limit the dispersion adhesive of claim 16 applicants must expressly and positively claim the dispersion adhesive contains aqueous acrylate dispersion).
Regarding claim 26, SABA does not expressly teach a particular amount applied of the adhesive to the first substrate. Krause teaches as exemplary the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate in an amount of 130 - 150 g/m2 (wet) (Paragraph 0127) wherein as the dispersion adhesive is 40% to 85% by weight water (Paragraph 0043) suggests Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block teach the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate in an amount of 10 - 100 g/m2 (dry). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive is applied to the first substrate as taught by Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block in an amount of 10 - 100 g/m2 as in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and SABA and optionally further de Block as applied to claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of Sloan.
Regarding claim 18, Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 18 except for a specific teaching the dispersion adhesive contains glycerine in addition. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of dispersion adhesive containing aqueous polyurethane dispersion further contain glycerine in addition as thickener at about 1 - 40 wt. % as evidenced by Sloan (Column 3, lines 52-67 and Column 7, lines 35-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive taught by Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block contains glycerine in addition and whereby a proportion of glycerine, based on the total weight of the dispersion adhesive, is 5 - 25 wt. %, it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, as a thickener as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Sloan.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and SABA and optionally further de Block as applied to claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of scribd or covestro.
Regarding claim 21, Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 21 except for a specific teaching whereby the aqueous polyurethane dispersion - is an anionic aqueous polyurethane dispersion; - has a pH value in the range of 6 - 9; - at 23°C has a viscosity of < 1,500 mPa·s, whereby the viscosity is measured according to standard M092-ISO 2555:2018 with spindle L2 at 30 revolutions per minute; and - has a minimum film-forming temperature of > 1 °C wherein conventional and commercially available aqueous polyurethane dispersion for producing water-based adhesive is Dispercoll such as Dispercoll U 84 or Dispercoll U 54 having the claimed properties as evidenced by scribd (see pages 1 and 2) or covestro (see pages 1 and 2) (and as also evidenced by the same Dispercoll polyurethane dispersions used in the instant invention). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the aqueous polyurethane dispersion taught by Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block is Dispercoll such as Dispercoll U 84 or Dispercoll U 54 (i.e. - is an anionic aqueous polyurethane dispersion; - has a pH value in the range of 6 - 9; - at 23°C has a viscosity of < 1,500 mPa·s, whereby the viscosity is measured according to standard M092-ISO 2555:2018 with spindle L2 at 30 revolutions per minute; and - has a minimum film-forming temperature of > 1 °C) as a simple substitution of conventional and commercially available aqueous polyurethane dispersion for producing water-based adhesive known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by scribd or covestro.
Claims 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and SABA and optionally further de Block as applied to claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of de Block.
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 24, Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block above teach all of the limitations in claims 21, 22, and 24 except for a specific teaching the dispersion adhesive further contains aqueous acrylate dispersion. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the dispersion adhesive contain the aqueous polyurethane dispersion or an aqueous acrylate dispersion and combinations thereof (Page 3, lines 6-32) and the plasticizer and further the adhesive have a glass transition temperature of -80 to -50 oC and a pH value in the range of 7-13.5 to form an improved adhesive composition as taught by de Block (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the dispersion adhesive taught by Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block further contain aqueous acrylate dispersion as taught by de Block (whereby the ratio between the aqueous polyurethane dispersion and the aqueous acrylate dispersion is 1:9 - 9:1 wherein de Block is not limited by ratio encompassing greater than 0:less than 10 - less than 10:greater than 0 it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05) as a simple substitution of one known aqueous dispersion(s) for another to yield predictable results and including the aqueous acrylate dispersion - comprises an acrylate polymer - has a pH value in the range of 2 - 9 and the acrylate polymer has a glass transition temperature Tg of 0 to -50oC (further regarding the pH and Tg in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05) as forms an improved adhesive composition as also suggested by de Block.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and SABA and optionally further de Block as applied to claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of Simmler.
Regarding claim 27, Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 27 except for a specific teaching of the pressing pressure during pressing wherein conventional and predicable pressing pressure during pressing includes 10,000 - 150,000 N/m2 (at least 0.1 N/cm2 and including to bond foam substrates using dispersion adhesive) as evidenced by Simmler (Abstract and Column 3, lines 17-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pressing pressure during pressing in Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block is 10,000 - 150,000 N/m2 as is the conventional and predictable pressing pressure as evidenced by Simmler (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and SABA and optionally further de Block as applied to claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, and further in view of Barberan Latorre and/or Ariznavarreta Esteban.
Regarding claim 28, Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block above teach all of the limitations in claim 28 except for a specific teaching of how the roller application is performed. Barberan Latorre and Ariznavarreta Esteban are described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a step a) during roller application as taught by Kraus as modified by SABA and optionally further de Block and SABA as modified by Kraus and optionally further de Block the dispersion adhesive is applied between a rotating dosing roller and a rotating application roller using the rotating dosing roller and the rotating application roller and the first substrate in the area to be bonded is brought into contact with the application roller for applying the dispersion adhesive, so that the dispersion adhesive is applied to the area to be bonded by the application roller as is conventional and predictable coating of adhesive by roller application well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Barberan Latorre and/or Ariznavarreta Esteban.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights