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(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 because:
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites “low-molecular-weight component content”. It is unclear what molecular weight is considered “low” and therefore the scope of the claims are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “the moisture-curable modified polyolefin (A) has a concentration of a low-molecular weight component extractable with acetone is 2.5 mass% or less.
Claims 3 and 4 set forth a molecular weight but do not specify the units, thereby the scope of the claims is unclear. For purposes of examination the units will be interpreted as g/mol.
Claim(s) 2-8 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they ultimately depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated over US2011/0003095 to Becker et al. (as found on the IDS dated 4/18/2024)
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Becker teaches functionalized polyolefins wherein monomers having one or more functional groups have been grafted onto the unfunctionalized base polymer [0148] and the modification tends to crosslink in the presence of moisture [0150] (i.e., moisture-curable modified polyolefin) that has a melt viscosity at 190°C preferred as 15000-30000 mPa*s [0151], a softening point of 85-160°C [0152] and low molecular weight portions of not more than 0.75% by mass [0113] and all inventive examples have a Constituents <500 D value of 0 [0278, Table 2]. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a low molecular weight component extractable with acetone would fall within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Becker teaches the curable resin of claim 1, wherein the polyolefin is a copolymer comprising propylene [0064] (i.e., propylene copolymer).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Becker teaches the curable resin of claim 1, that is particularly suitable for a hot melt adhesive [0161].
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Becker teaches the curable resin of claim 2, that is particularly suitable for a hot melt adhesive [0161].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2011/0003095 to Becker et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,093,496 to Dominquez et al.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, Becker teaches the curable resin of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference, wherein the polyolefins are particularly suitable for a hot melt adhesive [0161].
Becker is silent regarding a curing catalyst having a number average molecular weight of 1500-100000 g/mol.
However, Dominquez teaches a blend of polyolefins comprising functionalized polyolefins and polyetheramine [abstract] wherein the polyetheramines have a preferred molecular weight of 1500-2000 [Dominquez, col6, L6-8] and specifically use JEFFAMINE®-M-2005 [Dominquez, col 5, L56-67] that is the same commercially available catalyst as instant specification that has a molecular weight of 2,000 [instant specification, 0076]. Therefore, it would be reasonably expected that that it would also function as a curing catalyst, as a composition and its properties are inseparable. Becker and Dominquez are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely functionalized polyolefins used for adhesion.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Dominquez’s JEFFAMINE®-M-2005 to Beckers adhesive.
The motivation would have been that Dominguez teaches modification of the polyolefin with a polyetheramine provides a composition with improved properties, including improved bondability to materials and tensile strength (Column 3, Lines 13 – 22).
Claim(s) 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2011/0003095 to Becker et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US2018/0282451 to Carvagno et al.
Regarding Claim(s) 4 and 8, Becker teaches the curable resin of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference, wherein the polyolefins are particularly suitable for a hot melt adhesive [0161].
Becker is silent regarding a plasticizer having a number average molecular weight of 1500-100000 g/mol.
However, Carvagno teaches a composition comprising polyolefins and amorphous propylene-ethylene copolymer and amorphous polyolefins [Carvagno, title and 0017], such as Aerafin® 17 [Carvagno, 0118]. Aerafin® 17 is the same commercially available amorphous polyolefin used in instant application [instant specification, 0061] therefore it is reasonably expected that the
addition of AERAFIN 17 reads on the plasticizer of claim 4 having a number average molecular weight of 1500 to 100000 g/mol. Tran and Carvagno are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyolefin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Carvagno’s Aerafin® 17 polyolefin to Becker’s hot melt adhesive.
The motivation would have been that Carvagno teaches combining various types of polyolefins may provide adhesives with improved adhesion, cohesive strength, temperature resistance, viscosity, and set times. [Carvagno, 0117]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached on (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights