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.
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) 16-32 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, 22-27 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 page 1, paragraphs [0012] and [0024], teaching 1-40% styrene block polymers, rendering obvious the claimed range, such as SBS, SIS, SEBS, and Examiner submits common variants of these polymers routinely fall under Shore A 50, often being as low as Shore A 5, as evidence by their use as preferred styrene block polymers disclosed, thus at least rendering obvious the claimed hardness range; and note the styrene block copolymer need not be present at all and thus 0% copolymer b reads on Claim 27);
- 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 et al. is silent on enthalpy of crystallization, which is generally unpublished on data sheets, but it is highly likely some, if not most, of the waxes listed in Zhong et al. (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), which are known to be crystalline. 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 that altering crystallinity is a known mechanism in influencing mechanical and operation properties of the hot melt. It is further noted Zhong et al. desires high creep resistance hot melts (See page 1, paragraph [0010]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize polyolefin waxes, such as A-C 8, with a heat of crystallinity over 62 J/g. Such enthalpies are standard for polyolefin waxes which are known to be more crystalline, i.e. over 65 J/g, wherein crystallinity is a known controllable property in hot melts and waxes that affects the final characteristics of the hot melt by balancing properties such tack (more amorphous) and creep resistance (more crystalline) as desired.
Regarding Claim 17, A-C596 is a maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (See page 2, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 18, Examiner submits AC-180 (See Zhong, page 5, paragraph [0111]) has an acid value of 17 KOH/mg.
Regarding Claim 20, 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]), thus suggesting waxes above 80 J/g and below 97 J/g would be considered crystalline as described therein. As described above, somewhat less crystallinity in waxes, such as below 97 J/g, which would have been expected in oxidized and functionalized olefin waxes such as are taught in Zhong, and would have predictably helped balance creep resistance and adhesion.
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). 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.
Conclusion
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