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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claims
1-2, 4, 6, 9-13 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-10, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S PG Pub 20180171187A1) and Czmok (U.S Patent 6716527B1), and Fujimoto (U.S PG Pub 20130225745A1).
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)). Given that the adhesive as disclosed by Wang 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) 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). 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 discloses the plasticizer to be as claimed [0044]. Wang discloses the polyolefin polymer being as claimed [0022]. Wang has disclosed and additive (erucamide) [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 or erucic acid, it is known from Fujimoto, for a hot-melt adhesive to have erucic acid as an additive.
Fujimoto, drawn also to the art of hot melt adhesives (Abstract; Title) that are flame retardant [0227], discloses an additive being erucic acid [0163].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the composition of Wang, with the additive being erucic acid as claimed, since this would merely involve a simple substitution of one known element for another and the courts have held this to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2143 I(B)).
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, disclose 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) which would result in the claimed property (flame-retardant, viscosity, softening point). 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 claim 6, Wang discloses the antioxidant to be as claimed [0045].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S PG Pub 20180171187A1), Czmok (U.S Patent 6716527B1), and Fujimoto (U.S PG Pub 20130225745A1), and further in view of Fujinami (U.S PG Pub 20150368522A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang has disclosed a tackifying resin being present (see claim 1 rejection above), but has not disclosed explicitly the 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 12/10/2025, 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, and Fujimoto.
Applicant argues that the propylene copolymer of Wang does not meet the instant requirements of the polyolefin component.
The examiner disagrees. The instant limitations merely recite a polyolefin that is at least a copolymer of one of ethylene, butene, propylene. The claim language is not interpreted to recite that the copolymer is one which contains all three of ethylene, butene, and propylene.
Conclusion
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 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