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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/1/24, 1/8/25, 2/4/25, 4/7/25 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 38 recites the limitation "the ambient environment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 38 are 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.
First, the claims refer to “the ambient environment” but this phrase is vague. What temperature? Is the temperature varied? What humidity? Does the humidity vary? Light or dark conditions? There are many variables to an environment. Clarification is required.
Second, the heat-activatable material is further configured to retain one or more selected material properties…after being activated after the heat-activatable material has been exposed to the ambient environment in its un-activated state for at least 48 hours…” is confusing. Is the heat-activatable material retaining the property for 48 hours after activation or is the heat-activable material exposed to the ambient environment for 48 hours?
Third, the heat-activable material is applied to the first substrate and activated to form a bond between the first and second substrates having a “predetermined strength” but then is activated and the bond has a strength of at least 90 percent of the pre-determined strength. Does this mean the material was applied, activated to a predetermined bond strength and 48 hours later has 90 percent of the bond strength? Or was the heat-activatable material applied in an un-activated state for 48 hours? Or is a different property of the heat-activatable material retained after 48 hours? Clarification is required.
Last, in line 3, “applied disposed” should be one or the other. Applied on the first substrate or disposed on the first substrate.
Claims 2-5 are 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.
The claims refer to the heat-activatable material is “configured to retain” the selected material properties for various lengths of time. How is the material configured to retain the properties? There is no explanation for how the heat-activatable material is applied/treated/stored in a way that would change its “shelf-life”. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-17, 30-31 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,315,312 (DE LUCA ET AL).
Regarding claim 1: The reference discloses a web comprising a first substrate, a heat-activated adhesive material and a second substrate which are embossed under heat and pressure. See Figure 7 and col. 7, last full paragraph. It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the adhesive changes strength after time. However, it is known that heat-activated adhesives have a shelf-life of years if stored in the right conditions, i.e. the adhesiveness will last longer if stored in a cool, dark place versus a hot, humid, sunlit place. Further, there are many different types of heat-activable adhesives with varying properties that would all be affected by temperature, humidity and light. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of choosing the adhesive to optimize the adhesive strength depending on the conditions the adhesive would be subjected.
Regarding claims 2-5: As stated above, the shelf-life would depend on the storage conditions.
Regarding claim 12: The reference discloses two substrates bonded. See Figure 7.
Regarding claims 13-14, 30-31 and 34-35: The substrates have cuts (weakened regions) for embossing. See Figures 3 and 4. The adhesive is heated. See col. 7, last full paragraph.
Regarding claim 15-16: The bond strength and adhesive properties would depend on the adhesive applied, i.e. heat-activated adhesives are known.
Regarding claim 17: The embossed material is used for packaging. See Background.
Claims 6, 9-11, 18-25, 28-29, 32-33, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,315,312 (DE LUCA ET AL) in view of US 3,691,120 (SUSUKI ET AL).
Regarding claim 6 and 9-11: The ‘312 reference disclose the web in the above 103 rejection. It is recognized that the reference does not specify a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive. However, the ‘120 reference discloses it is known to use hot-melt adhesive of a thermoplastic such as ethylene vinyl acetate with paper. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive in the ‘312 web. Substituting one heat-activatable adhesive for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 18 and 19: The ‘312 discloses a web comprising a first substrate, a heat-activated adhesive material and a second substrate which are embossed under heat and pressure. See Figure 7 and col. 7, last full paragraph. The first and second substrates having cuts formed therein for embossing. See Figures 3 and 4. It is recognized that the reference does not specify a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive. However, the ‘120 reference discloses it is known to use hot-melt adhesive of a thermoplastic such as ethylene vinyl acetate with paper. See claim 1 and col. 3, line 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive in the ‘312 web. Substituting one heat-activatable adhesive for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20: The ‘312 reference discloses the substrates are paper. See Examples.
Regarding claim 21: The ‘312 discloses the adhesive is heated. See col. 7, last full paragraph.
Regarding claim 22: The ‘312 discloses a packaging material. See Background.
Regarding claim 23: The ‘312 discloses a web comprising a first substrate, a heat-activated adhesive material and a second substrate which are embossed under heat and pressure. See Figure 7 and col. 7, last full paragraph. The first and second substrates having cuts formed therein for embossing. See Figures 3 and 4. It is recognized that the reference does not specify a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive. However, the ‘120 reference discloses it is known to use hot-melt adhesive of a thermoplastic such as ethylene vinyl acetate with paper. See claim 1 and col. 3, line 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive in the ‘312 web. Substituting one heat-activatable adhesive for another would yield predictable results. The web of ‘312 is for packaging. See Background.
Regarding claims 24-25 and 28-29: The ‘120 reference discloses heat-sealable thermoplastic EVA as an adhesive for use with paper. See claim 1 and col. 3, line 8.
Regarding claims 32-33: The ‘312 reference discloses the system for embossing and heating the adhesive. See Figure 7 and col.7.
Regarding claim 36: The ‘312 discloses a method of forming a web comprising a first substrate, a heat-activated adhesive material and a second substrate which are embossed under heat and pressure. See Figure 7 and col. 7, last full paragraph. The first and second substrates having cuts formed therein for embossing. See Figures 3 and 4. It is recognized that the reference does not specify a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive. However, the ‘120 reference discloses it is known to use hot-melt adhesive of a thermoplastic such as ethylene vinyl acetate with paper. See claim 1 and col. 3, line 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermoplastic heat-sealable adhesive in the ‘312 web. Substituting one heat-activatable adhesive for another would yield predictable results. The web of ‘312 is for packaging. See Background.
Regarding claim 37: Both substrates are cut where they are embossed with the die. See Figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 38: It is recognized that the reference does not disclose the adhesive changes strength after time. However, it is known that heat-activated adhesives have a shelf-life of years if stored in the right conditions, i.e. the adhesiveness will last longer if stored in a cool, dark place versus a hot, humid, sunlit place. Further, there are many different types of heat-activable adhesives with varying properties that would all be affected by temperature, hu
midity and light. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of choosing the adhesive to optimize the adhesive strength depending on the conditions the adhesive would be subjected.
Claims 7-8 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,315,312 (DE LUCA ET AL) in view of EP 0074528 (VOLLMAN ET AL).
Regarding claims 7-8: The ‘312 discloses a method of forming a web comprising a first substrate, a heat-activated adhesive material and a second substrate which are embossed under heat and pressure. See Figure 7 and col. 7, last full paragraph. The first and second substrates having cuts formed therein for embossing. See Figures 3 and 4. It is recognized that the reference does not specify a thermoplastic polymer dispersion as an adhesive. However, the ‘528 reference discloses it is known to use a thermoplastic polymer dispersion including a stabilizer with paper. See p. 6 and 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermoplastic dispersion adhesive in the ‘312 web. Substituting one heat-activatable adhesive for another would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 26-27: The ‘312 discloses a method of forming a web comprising a first substrate, a heat-activated adhesive material and a second substrate which are embossed under heat and pressure. See Figure 7 and col. 7, last full paragraph. The first and second substrates having cuts formed therein for embossing. See Figures 3 and 4. It is recognized that the reference does not specify a thermoplastic polymer dispersion as an adhesive. However, the ‘528 reference discloses it is known to use a thermoplastic polymer dispersion including a stabilizer with paper. See p. 6 and 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thermoplastic dispersion adhesive in the ‘312 web. Substituting one heat-activatable adhesive for another would yield predictable results. The web of ‘312 is for packaging. See Background.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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 E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785