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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S PG Pub 20180171187A1), Czmok (U.S Patent 6716527B1), Ganewatta (U.S PG Pub 20230087482A1), Davis (U.S PG Pub 20230002651A1), and further in view of Fujinami (U.S PG Pub 20150368522A1).
Regarding claim 1 & 11-13, Wang, drawn also to the art of polypropylene based hot-melt adhesives (Title; Abstract), discloses an adhesive that contains, a thermoplastic polyolefin polymer, a resin, between 2 to 4.5% by mass of a plasticizer, an additive component [0104-0110], and between 0.2 to 2% by mass of an antioxidant component [0045]. Wang also discloses the weight ranges of the thermoplastic polyolefin, resin, plasticizer and antioxidant being as claimed [0104-0110]. The courts have held that 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) (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Wang also discloses a process as claimed in instant claim 11 [0118-0119]. Wang also discloses using the adhesive in a bed pad, i.e. in the sleeping industry and in a mattress (as claimed in instant claims 12-13) [0124]. Wang has also disclosed the polyolefin polymer being as claimed [0022] and has disclosed an additive (erucamide) [0045]. Further, Wang discloses the antioxidant to be as claimed (phenol antioxidant) [0045].
Wang has not explicitly disclosed the adhesive being granulated or pearl-shaped, however, this is known in the art from Czmok.
Czmok, drawn also to the art of a hotmelt adhesive that is granulated (Abstract0, discloses the adhesive being a granulated adhesive and that such an adhesive is also free-flowing even after storage at a high temperature under pressure (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the adhesive of Wang, with the adhesive being granulated, as disclosed by Czmok, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a granulated adhesive that is free flowing even after storage at a high temperature under pressure.
Regarding the additive being EBS or EBO, it is known from Ganewatta for a hot-melt adhesive to have EBS as an additive.
Ganewatta, drawn also to the art of hot melt adhesives (Abstract; Title) that have flame retardants [0052], discloses an additive being EBS [0061] and discloses that such an additive results in improved compatibility char and speech formation [0061].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the composition of Wang, with the additive being EBS as claimed, as disclosed by Ganewatta, to have improved compatibility char and speck formation.
Regarding the limitation of the plasticizer, while Wang has disclosed the plasticizer being polybutene or polyisobutene [0044], Wang has not explicitly disclosed the plasticizer being a copolymer of isobutylene and butene. However, such a plasticizer is known in the art from Davis.
Davis, drawn also to the art of hotmelt adhesive compositions (Abstract; Title), discloses a plasticizer to be an isobutylene/butene copolymer [0022], and discloses that such an adhesive has improved adhesion performance on non-polar substrates [0022].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the composition of Wang, with the plasticizer being as claimed, as disclosed by Davis, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have an adhesive with improved adhesive performance on non-polar substrates.
Further, regarding the specific type of resin, Wang has disclosed a tackifying resin being present (see claim 1 rejection above), but has not disclosed explicitly the specific type of resin. However, it is known in the art for a hot melt adhesive to have a resin as instantly claimed.
Fujinami, drawn also to the art of a propylene based hot-melt adhesive (Abstract), discloses a tackifying resin that is a rosin derivative or a polyterpene resin [0158], as instant claimed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the adhesive of Wang, with the resin being as instantly claimed, as disclosed by Fujinami, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve adhesiveness and wettability [0160].
Finally, as pertaining to the setting time, it is noted that the adhesive as disclosed by Wang (as modified by Czmok, Ganewatta, Davis, and Fujinami) has the same or similar components, the inherent properties of setting time would necessarily be present. The examiner notes that the hot melt adhesive has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. polyolefin, resin, antioxidant, plasticizer, additive in the weight range as claimed) which would result in the claimed property (of setting time). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the same or similar product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 2, 9-10, the limitations or properties of flame retardant, viscosity, and softening point, are inherent material properties, and as such given Wang as modified by Czmok, Ganewatta, Davis, and Fujinami, discloses the same or similar adhesive as claimed, it can be reasonably expected that the inherent properties are present. The examiner notes that the hot melt adhesive has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. polyolefin, resin, antioxidant, plasticizer, additive in the weight ranges as claimed) which would result in the claimed property (flame-retardant, viscosity, softening point). Further, the adhesive of Wang is also used in the same or similar field of endeavor, and thus can also be reasonably expected to have similar properties as claimed (used in a sleeping mattress). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the same or similar product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see RCE, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang, Czmok, Ganewatta, Davis, and Fujinami.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure of flame-retardants in the prior art of record, and that the specificity of the components in the newly amended claims provides teachings over the prior art and show superior results. Further, Applicant argues that the flame retardancy is not an inherent property.
The examiner disagrees. While the examiner does appreciate that the instantly amended claims are more specific and contain ‘consisting of’ language, thus restricting to only the components recited thereafter, this does distinguish over the prior art. As explained above, Wang, as modified by Czmok, Ganewatta, Davis, and Fujinami, discloses each and every component in the weight range as claimed, thus disclosing the totality of the adhesive composition as claimed. Further, as is also noted above, Wang is drawn to the same or similar field of endeavor as the instant application (i.e. an adhesive in a sleeping mattress), and additionally, given that Wang (as modified) discloses each and every element of the instantly claimed adhesive, it can be reasonably expected for the adhesive of Wang to perform in the same or similar manner as applicant instantly argues i.e. having flame-retardancy and the inherent properties as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights