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 .
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 16 is 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.
In claim 16, the gas permeability is recited as measured by a TAPPI standard. However, the specification does not disclose the testing methodology. This rejection could be overcome by making an English language translation of the TAPPI standard a part of the record.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maak et al, WO 2007/008558.
Maak discloses an aqueous dispersion of a hot melt adhesive. See page 3, paragraph 0010 and page 4, paragraph 0018. The dispersion comprises one or more polymers, one or more tackifiers, one or more waxes and water. The dispersion has an average particle size of from 0.1-100 microns. See page 3, paragraph 0011. The adhesives can be applied to nonwoven hygiene products. See page 4, paragraph 00019 and page 46, paragraph 00151. With regard to the polymer employed in the dispersion, suitable polymers include polyolefins, (see page 5, paragraph 0020), , as well as ionomers of ethylene polymers. More than one polymer or ionomer can be employed in the composition. See page 5, paragraph 0019. With regard to the polyolefin being hydrophilic-modified, the instant specification states that this can be either a modified polyolefin or a polyolefin in combination with a surfactant. Maak teaches hydrophilic surfactants can be included with the polymers in the composition. See paragraph 00108. In addition to the polymers, the composition can include waxes, such as Fischer-Tropsch waxes, petroleum derived waxes such as paraffin, and synthetic waxes, as well as natural waxes. See paragraphs 0099 and 00100 on page 33. Additionally, the dispersions can include tackifiers such as aliphatic, cycloaliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons; terpenes and modified turpenes; rosins and rosin derivatives. Note that the terpenes and modified turpenes and rosins correspond to the claimed emulsion tackifier and that the paragraph 00102 disclose partially hydrogenated cycloaliphatic petroleum hydrocarbon resins with softening points of 100-130 , such as EASTOTAC H-100, H-115 and H-130. H-130 is a C5 petroleum solid material. The tackifiers have a ring and ball softening point from 70-150 degrees C and a viscosity at 350F of not more than 2000 centipoise. See paragraph 00101 on page 34. The combination of polymer, ionomer, wax and tackifying resins are about 1-74 volume percent of the dispersion and water is about 26-99 volume percent See paragraph 00107.
Maak differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed amounts of each of the polymer, ionomer, tackifiers, and waxes, however, since Maak teaches the combination of polymer, ionomer, wax and tackifiers are about 1-74 volume percent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected ranges for each of the components within the broad ranges taught by Maak in order to provide a composition which had the desired degree of tack, (tackifier), viscosity, (wax) and adhesiveness, (polymer).
With regard to the size of the tackifiers and wax particles, Maak teaches that the dispersion components have a size of 0.1-100 microns, (see page 3, paragraph 0011). Further, while EASTOTAC tackifiers are solid materials or flakes, they are not disclosed as being microparticles, however, it would have been obvious to have ground the tackifiers to the desired size to form a mixture with the other components in the adhesive composition.
With regard to the glass transition temperature of the composition, wax particles, and polymer, since the same types of polymers, waxes and tackifiers are used in Maak as are claimed, it is reasonable to expect that they would have the claimed glass transition temperatures, since like materials must have like properties.
With regard to claim 15-17, Maak teaches that the composition can be applied to nonwoven hygiene products and is especially useful for bonding polyolefins. See paragraphs 00157 and 00151. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have applied the adhesive of Maak to spunbonded polyolefin nonwovens, in view of the teaching of Maak that the adhesive was suitable for bonding polyolefins and nonwovens and to have selected the amount of adhesive which produced a suitably durable bond without impairing breathability or using an excess amount of adhesive for reasons of economy.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the water based adhesives is made by drying it an elevated temperature and that after heat sealing with a flexible sheet or blister container, the coated nonwoven fabric provides sufficient gas permeability for steam sterilization or ethylene oxide sterilization. However, none of these limitations are present in the claims.
Applicant argues that Maak does not disclose the size of the wax particles. However, Maak teaches that the dispersion components have a size of 0.1-100 microns, (see page 3, paragraph 0011. Since the dispersion components are the tackifier and the wax, they would necessarily have the claimed particle size.
With regard to the particular amounts of the components, it is agreed that Maak does not disclose the particular proportions individually, but since Maak teaches the combination of polymer, ionomer, wax and tackifiers are about 1-74 volume percent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected ranges for each of the components within the broad ranges taught by Maak in order to provide a composition which had the desired degree of tack, (tackifier), viscosity, (wax) and adhesiveness, (polymer). Maak teaches the components, teaches what each component provides and teaches a volume percent of the composition relative to the balance of the composition which is water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the relative proportion of each component within the broad composition disclosed by Maak in order to provide the optimal amounts of each component depending on what properties are desired in the final product.
Applicant argues that Maak is directed to a different technical problem and does not teach the technical effects achieved by this application. However, it is not required that Maak be directed to solving the same problem as Applicant. Additionally, the claims do not include limitations regarding the technical effects achieved by this application. The claims are drawn to a composition and a nonwoven fabric to which the composition is applied, not to technical effects and do not include any limitations regarding technical effects.
Applicant argues that the instant invention provides a balance of properties required for healthcare packaging such as peeling within the adhesive rather than tearing the fibers of the nonwoven. However, none of these limitations are in the claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights