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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the discussion of crystallinity for hot melts as a whole does not equally apply to wax therein. However, Applicant mischaracterizes Examiner use of controllability and the use of the polymer as an optimization of the wax. However, the use of Alper et al. (US 2011/0021103) is mainly evidentiary to support the position the waxes in Zhong (US 2014/0324006) inherently meet the claimed enthalpies, and secondly to show the selection of wax property does matter in this regard for the desired properties of the hot melt itself. Alper provides evidence “semi-crystalline” is being up to 80 J/g (See page 16, paragraph [0016]) and waxes being described as “crystalline” being suitable up to 20% (See page 4, paragraph [0039]), suggesting higher enthalpies than semi-crystallization are suitable, i.e. over 80 J/g, and specifically teaching a polyolefin wax with an enthalpy of 91.3 J/g (See page 11, Epolene C-10). The rationale for curating the wax primarily comes from Zhong itself, wherein polyolefin wax is taught to provide creep resistance, age resistance, and elastic modulus (See page 2, paragraph [0042] and page 5, paragraph [0124]), and wherein various polyolefin waxes, including those with all the characteristics of high enthalpies, as taught.
Zhong explicitly teaches A-C 8 and A-C680 polyolefin waxes (See page 2, paragraph [0043]), wherein all available evidence suggests they possess the claimed properties. These waxes are included up to 25% by weight (See Abstract and page 1, paragraph [0022]), and are expressly used within the claimed ranges and within compositions that read on the claims in Examples 1, 3 and 4 therein (See and page 5, paragraphs [0109] and [0111] and, pages 5-6 Tables 1 and 3, wherein A-C 8 is used in examples 1 and 3 at 5% and A-C680 in example 3). These waxes inherently possess some enthalpy of crystallization and all evidence of record suggests they meet the claimed minimum for property.
Although Applicant argues an inherent finding these waxes possess the claimed properties is speculative, when the Examiner cannot concretely ascertain the properties possessed by the prior art and it is reasonable to presume that the prior art would possess these properties, and the burden shifts to the Applicant to show otherwise. See MPEP 2112(V); also see In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975); In re Best 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Examiner has noted Alper et al. suggests waxes above 65 J/g enthalpy are suitable up to 20% (See page 2, paragraph [0016] and page 4, paragraph [0039]). Alper et al. explicitly teaches a branched polyolefin in Epolene C-10 with a MP of 102 C and a melt enthalpy of 91.3 and a Fischer Tropsch wax with a MP of 105 and a melt enthalpy of 225.6 J/g (See page 11), further providing support waxes, including polyolefin waxes, in the claimed range are known and suitable. Alper further indicates crystallinity increases with increasing density in olefins (See page 5, paragraph [0055]), and is well-known to correlate with drop melting point.
Examiner notes Licocene PP 1302, a propylene-ethylene wax, is taught on page 11 in Alper et al. as having a density of 0.87 g/cm3 and an enthalpy of 30 J/g, wherein the provide data sheet supports this density and teaches a drop melting point of 87-93 C (See Licocene PP 1302). Epolene C-10, a branched polyethylene wax, has a density of 0.903 g/cm3, and drop melting point of 102-104 C, and an enthalpy of 91.3 J/g (See Epolene C-10 data sheet, and Alper et al., page 11). This is an enthalpy increase of over 60 J/g with a 0.03 g/cm3 density increase and a melting point increase of about 10 C.
Alper et al. consistently illustrates density and enthalpy as correlated in polyolefins (See page 11), but no data sheet reports enthalpy, and Examiner cannot find this as a reportable figure for the waxes disclosed in Zhong et al. However, A-C 8, a low-density polyethylene wax, has a density much higher than Epolene C-10 at 0.93 g/cm3 and a drop melting point of 113 (See A-C 8A data sheet), while A-C 680, a low-density oxidized polyethylene wax, also has a density of 0.93 g/cm3 and a drop melting point of 108 C (See A-C 680A data sheet). Thus, based on available evidence of density of polyolefins and drop melting points, all both A-C 8A and A-C 680, having a density of 0.03 more than Epolene C-10 and 5+ C higher MPs, would presumably have an enthalpy well over that of Epolene C-10. Further, A-C 8 is specifically taught as an alternative to Fischer Topsch waxes (See A-C 8 data sheet), which Alper et al. teaches on as having an enthalpy of 225.6 J/g. As such, regardless of whether there is specific motivation to use higher enthalpy waxes generally, the waxes already taught and used in Zhong are considered to inherently possess the claimed enthalpy characteristics based on an abundance of available evidence, and the burden shifts to the Applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Examiner further notes Examiner previously argued PPMA 6252 wax would have been obvious to use in Zhong. Applicant teaches this wax as having an enthalpy of crystallization of 79 J/g (See, instant PgPub 2025/0223474, page 8, paragraph [0152]). Applicant did not specifically address why use of such a wax would not have been obvious in Zhong.
Applicant further argues Zhong does not characterize any of its disclosed styrenic block polymers as having styrene block content at or below 21% and with a shore hardness of 50 or less. However, Zhong explicitly lists Vector 4114 as a suitable co-polymer (a) styrenic block polymer (See page 2, paragraph [0026]). The data sheet for Vector 4114 shows it as a liner SIS block polymer with 15% styrene and a shore A hardness of 26. Zhong expressly teaches using such styrene block polymers with a styrene content of less than 20%, suggesting hardness within the claimed range by Applicant’s own admission, and combining them with higher styrene content copolymer, i.e. such as copolymer b, having a higher styrene content to achieve an overall styrene content of at least 20% (See page 2, paragraph [0031]).
Applicant’s argument on Claim 26 is persuasive since Zhong teaches away from using only a styrene such as Vector 4114 with a styrene content under 20% since copolymer (a) must be at least 25% styrene (See page 2, paragraph [0031]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-25 and 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 2014/0324006) in view of Alper et al. (US 2011/0021103).
Regarding Claims 16, 19-21, 22-25, 27 and 30, Zhong teaches a hot melt adhesive composition (See Abstract) comprising:
- from 5 to 35 % by weight of at least one styrene block polymeric component such as SIS, SBS, etc. (See pages 1-2, paragraphs [0012] and [0024]-[0031], teaching 1-40% styrene block polymers, rendering obvious the claimed range, such as SBS, SIS, SEBS, including styrene below 20%, and Examiner submits common variants of these polymers routinely fall under Shore A 50, such as SIS Vector 4114, thus at least rendering obvious the claimed styrene and hardness range, and mixtures);
- from 40 to 65 % by weight of at least one tackifying resin (See page 3, paragraphs [0048], teaching 25-65% tackifier, rendering obvious the claimed range);
- from 15 to 40 % by weight of at least one plasticizer (See page 3, paragraph [0052], teaching 12-30% plasticizer, rendering obvious the claimed range);
- from 3 to 15 % by weight of at least one polyolefin wax (See page 2, paragraph [0044] and page 5, paragraphs [0109] and [0111], teaching polyolefin, i.e. polyethylene, waxes, A-C 8 and A-C680, wherein is A-C680 is oxidized similarly to those disclosed in the instant invention at 5-15%). Note it is implicit the composition is formed by mixing (as in Claim 30) the individual components therein.
Zhong is silent on enthalpy of crystallization, which is generally unpublished on data sheets, but available evidence suggests some, if not most, of the waxes listed in Zhong (See page 2, paragraph [0043]) have enthalpies of crystallization of at least 45 J/g, and likely all non-functionalized polyolefin waxes fall well over 45 J/g (e.g. 200 J/g), these being known to be crystalline (Note available evidence suggest at least polyolefins such as A-C 8 and A-C680 possess enthalpies well over 62 g/J). In similar hot melt compositions for hygiene products, Alper et al. describes higher crystallinity in hot melts as improving creep resistance (See page 1, paragraph [0007]), teaches “semi-crystalline” as defining an enthalpy of fusion/crystallinity of 30 J/g to 80 J/g or 50 to 65 J/g (See page 2, paragraph [0016]), and describes wax as being “more crystalline” additives to the hot melts at up to 20% by weight. This suggests waxes of over 80 J/g are well-known as standard wax additives in hot melts and would have been suitable in Zhong. It is further noted Zhong et al. desires high creep resistance hot melts, and suggests wax improves this property and modulus (See page 1, paragraph [0010]). Thus, the claimed enthalpies are considered inherent in waxes such as A-C 8 and A-C680, but it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize polyolefin waxes, with a heat of crystallinity over 80 J/g. Such enthalpies are standard for polyolefin waxes which are known to be more crystalline, i.e. over 80 J/g, and Zhong teaches using these types of waxes explicitly. Alper et al. teaches “semi-crystalline” as “semi-crystalline” as defining an enthalpy of fusion/crystallinity of 30 J/g to 80 J/g in the broadest range (See page 2, paragraph [0016]) and teaches branched polyolefins have a range of enthalpies including 91.3 J/g (See page 11), thus suggesting waxes above 80 J/g and below 97 J/g would have predictably been suitable.
Regarding Claim 17, A-C596 is a maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (See page 2, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 18, Examiner submits AC-680 (See Zhong, page 5, paragraph [0111]) has an acid value of 16 KOH/mg.
Regarding Claims 28, 29, 31, and 32, Zhong teaches coating surfaces in hygiene disposable articles, such as diapers, and teaches nonwoven fabrics with polyester and cotton fibers, for bonding (See page 3, paragraphs [0065]-[0069]).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong and Alper et al. as applied to Claim 16, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0073790) and/or Inoue (US 2014/0199908).
Regarding Claims 17-20, Zhong teaches the hot melt adhesive composition as described above. Zhong teaches waxes present at at least 5%, including maleic anhydride functional polypropylene waxes such as A-C596 (See above). Although Alper et al. indicates at least some disclosed waxes in Zhong fall within the claimed property ranges, the exact properties cannot definitively be determined. However, it is well-known to use maleic anhydride grafted polyolefin waxes (similar to A-C596) in hot melt adhesives for disposable articles like in Zhong. Chen et al. teaches these types of waxes, up to 10% by weight, can improve green strength and spray uniformity in hot melt for disposable articles (See page 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0012], page 3, paragraphs [0057] and [0062], page 5, paragraph [0093], pages 6-7, CE5, wherein PPMA 6252, a preferred wax instantly disclosed and thus presumably having the claimed properties, is a suitable wax, and although olefin block polymers are disclosed, SIS shows good green strength and spray uniformity although it was not tested for peel strength; also see Inoue, page 6, paragraph [0109], and pages 7-8, Table I, wherein PPMA6252 is used with a styrene copolymer such as SEBS at 5% and has excellent peel strength; note PPMA by Applicant’s own spec has an enthalpy of 79 J/g). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize PPMA6252 as the wax in Zhong. Zhong already teaches the suitability of maleic anhydride grafted polyolefin waxes and PPMA6252 is a known commercially available wax used in similar hot melts to improve properties, and thus would have predictable been suitable in Zhong and potentially improved green strength and coat uniformity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Zhong teaches away from using only a styrene such as Vector 4114 with a styrene content under 20% since copolymer (a) must be at least 25% styrene (See page 2, paragraph [0031]), and thus there is no specific motivation to utilize a composition with all the features of Claim 26.
Conclusion
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
