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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0117138).
Regarding claim 1: Gao discloses a multilayered structure comprising:
a first layer comprising a first sheet of repulpable material, see for example (Figs. 1-16-17; & paragraph 147; “When multiple sheets (i.e., layers) are used for the first wall, second wall, or both, they can be the same or different layers or sheets. Two, three, four, or even more layers or sheets can be used” & paragraph 136; “the recyclable materials are repulpable materials, such as paper. In some embodiments, the sheet materials of the foam padded materials and the walls of the packaging articles contain only repulpable paper, and thus are described as consisting of repulpable paper.”), the first layer having a first side defining a first face, a second layer in direct contact with the first face of the first layer and including a hot melt adhesive composition in foam form (Fig. 1; paragraph 158; “using the foamed composition itself as an adhesive”), such that a density of the second layer is no greater than 0.85 g/cc.
Gao may not suggest the claimed density of the foam to be no greater than 0.85 g/cc. However, is it is noted that since the applied art suggest the claimed structures, coming up with a specific range would only be a matter of range, requires a skilled person in the art to come up with the desired range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s foam adhesive with another with density is no greater than 0.85 g/cc, in order to improve the quality of the foam adhesive.
Regarding claim 2: Gao may not suggest the exact claimed hot melt adhesive composition comprises from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 15 wt.% to 60 wt.% oil, and from 5 wt.% to 50 wt.% a tackifying resin. However, Gao uses a hot melt adhesive (paragraph169; “When a heat sealable adhesive is used, it can be any heat sealable or hot melt adhesive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s foam adhesive with another hot melt adhesive compositions comprise from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 15 wt.% to 60 wt.% oil, and from 5 wt.% to 50 wt.% a tackifying resin, since it has been held that coming up with a specific range or value, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 3: Gao may not suggest that the hot melt adhesive composition comprises from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 15 wt.% to 60 wt.% mineral oil, and from 5 wt.% to 50 wt.% a styrenic polymer tackifying resin. However, Gao uses a hot melt adhesive (paragraph169; “When a heat sealable adhesive is used, it can be any heat sealable or hot melt adhesive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s foam adhesive with another hot melt adhesive compositions comprise from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 15 wt.% to 60 wt.% mineral oil, and from 5 wt.% to 50 wt.% a styrenic polymer tackifying resin, since it has been held that coming up with a specific range or value, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 4: Gao does not suggest the exact claimed hot melt adhesive composition comprises from 15 wt.% to 45 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 20 wt.% to 55 wt.% mineral oil, and from 20 wt.% to 40 wt.% a styrenic polymer tackifying resin. However, Gao uses a hot melt adhesive (paragraph169; “When a heat sealable adhesive is used, it can be any heat sealable or hot melt adhesive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s foam adhesive with another hot melt adhesive compositions comprise from 15 wt.% to 45 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 20 wt.% to 55 wt.% mineral oil, and from 20 wt.% to 40 wt.% a styrenic polymer tackifying resin, since it has been held that coming up with a specific range or value, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 5: Gao does not suggest the hot melt adhesive composition comprises from 20 wt.% to 40 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 35 wt.% to 50 wt.% mineral oil, and from 20 wt.% to 25 wt.% a styrenic polymer tackifying resin. However, Gao uses a hot melt adhesive (paragraph169; “When a heat sealable adhesive is used, it can be any heat sealable or hot melt adhesive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s foam adhesive with another hot melt adhesive compositions comprise from 20 wt.% to 40 wt.% a SEBS block copolymer, from 35 wt.% to 50 wt.% mineral oil, and from 20 wt.% to 25 wt.% a styrenic polymer tackifying resin, since it has been held that coming up with a specific range or value, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 6: wherein the tackifying resin is a modified styrenic tackifier (paragraph 99; “Examples of suitable optional additives include tackifiers” & “In certain embodiments, the polymeric component includes…, (meth)acrylic, styrene butyl rubber, natural rubber, styrenic”).
Regarding claim 7: Gao does not suggest that the hot melt adhesive composition exhibits a peak separation force of no greater than 0.1 N, when measured in accordance with the Tack Test Method. However, Gao uses a hot melt adhesive (paragraph169; “When a heat sealable adhesive is used, it can be any heat sealable or hot melt adhesive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s foam adhesive with another hot melt adhesive compositions with a peak separation force of no greater than 0.1 N, since it has been held that coming up with a specific range or value, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 8: Gao may not suggest the second layer exhibits a when tested according to the Residual Deformation Test. However, Gao uses a second and multiple layer exhibits (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s multiple layers with a residual deformation value of no greater than 10%, since it has been held that coming up with a specific range or value, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 9: Gao may not be specific about the second layer exhibits to be a residual deformation value of no greater than six % when tested according to the Residual Deformation Test. However, Gao uses a second and multiple layer exhibits (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s multiple layers with a residual deformation value of no greater than six %, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 10: wherein the repulpable material comprises at least one from the group of paper, papyrus, cardboard, and paperboard (paragraph 136; the recyclable materials are repulpable materials, such as paper).
Regarding claims 11 & 12: Gao may not suggest that the density of the second layer is no greater than 0.50 g/cc. and/or no greater than 0.25 g/cc. However, Gao uses a second and multiple layer (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gao’s multiple layers with layer no greater than 0.50 g/cc. and/or no greater than 0.25 g/cc, requires only skilled in the art as a matter of discovering the best range.
Regarding claim 13: a third layer in direct contact with the second layer, the third layer comprising a second sheet of repulpable material (paragraph 147; “When multiple sheets (i.e., layers) are used for the first wall, second wall, or both, they can be the same or different layers or sheets. Two, three, four, or even more layers or sheets can be used”).
Regarding claim 14: a third layer in direct contact with the second layer, the third layer comprising a second sheet of repulpable material defining a second face; and a fourth layer in direct contact with the second face of the third layer (“When multiple sheets (i.e., layers) are used for the first wall, second wall, or both, they can be the same or different layers or sheets. Two, three, four, or even more layers or sheets can be used”) and comprising a hot melt adhesive composition in foam form (Fig. 1; via the shown foam adhesive) such that a density of the fourth layer is no greater than 0.85 g/cc.
Regarding claim 15: a first layer comprising a sheet of repulpable material, the first layer having a first side, and a second side opposite the first side and defining a second face, a plurality of energy absorbing pads positioned in direct contact with the first layer, each pad of the plurality of energy absorbing pads positioned at a discrete location and separate from each of the other pads of the plurality of energy absorbing pads, the second layer in direct contact with the second face of the first layer and comprising a hot melt adhesive composition defining a bulk material, the adhesive composition in foam form and exhibiting a density of no greater than 0.85 g/cc., see for example (paragraph 136; “the walls of the packaging articles contain only repulpable paper, and thus are described as consisting of repulpable paper”). Regarding the specific range of foam density to be no greater than 0.85, as set forth above that is only a matter of range to be discovered.
Regarding claim 16: wherein the second layer comprises the hot melt adhesive composition in foamed form and exhibiting a residual deformation value of no greater than 10 % when tested according to the Residual Deformation Test, as set forth above, discovering a specific range is only a matter of discovering a range by those skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 17: wherein the second layer comprises the hot melt adhesive composition in foamed form and exhibiting a residual deformation value of no greater than six % when tested according to the Residual Deformation Test, as set forth above, discovering a specific range is only a matter of discovering a range by those skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 18: wherein the hot melt adhesive composition is in a foamed form and exhibits a peak separation force of no greater than 0.1 N, when measured in accordance with the Tack Test Method, as set forth above, discovering a specific range is only a matter of discovering a range by those skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 19: An enclosing article comprising: a first wall; and a second wall; the first wall and second wall positioned in facing arrangement to one another and bonded to each other along an outer border of each of the first and second wall, at least one of the first wall and the second wall comprising a first layer comprising a sheet of repulpable material, the first layer having a first side, and a second side opposite the first side and defining a second face, and a second layer in direct contact with the second face of the first layer and comprising a hot melt adhesive composition in foam form and exhibiting a density of no greater than 0.85 g/cc., see for example (Figs. 2-8; via the shown final formed article using foamed adhesive).
Regarding the exact density to be with no greater than 0.85, as explained above that would be only a matter of discovering a range.
Regarding claim 20: wherein the second layer comprises a plurality of energy absorbing pads in foamed form and exhibiting a residual deformation value of no greater than 10 % when tested according to the Residual Deformation Test, (paragraph 136; “foam padded”). Further, as set forth above, discovering a specific range is only a matter of discovering a range by those skilled in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights