DETAILED ACTION
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
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2025 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, line 3, “said copolymer” should read “said at least one but-1-ene ethylene copolymer A”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, line 6, “said copolymer T” should read “said at least one propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer T”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 2, “copolymer(s) A” should read ““said at least one but-1-ene ethylene copolymer A”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 2 recites “said composition”, which should be “said hot-melt self-adhesive composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 21-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 21-35 recite “The composition”, which should be “The hot-melt self-adhesive composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claim 22, line 1, claim 23, line 1, and claim 24, line 1, “the copolymer A” should read “said at least one but-1-ene ethylene copolymer A”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25, line 2, “copolymer(s) T” should read “said at least one propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer T”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25, line 2 recites “said composition”, which should be “said hot-melt self-adhesive composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 26-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claim 26, line 1, claim 27, line 1, and claim 28, line 1, “the copolymer T” should read “said at least one propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer T”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29, line 3 recites “said composition”, which should be “said hot-melt self-adhesive composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 29, 30 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claim 29, line 2, claim 30, line 2 and claim 33, line 2, “tackifying resin(s)” should read “at least one nohydrogenated tackifying resin”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32, line 2, “(copolymer A and copolymer T)” should read “(said at least one but-1-ene ethylene copolymer A and said at least one propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer T)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 33, line 2, “(copolymer A and copolymer T)” should read “(said at least one but-1-ene ethylene copolymer A and said at least one propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer T)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 34, lines 2-3, “said composition” should read “said hot-melt self-adhesive composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36, line 2 recites “said layer A”, which should be “said adhesive layer A”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 32, 33 and 36-38 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.
Claim 32 recites “polymers (copolymer A + copolymer T) ranging from 41.5% to 84.5%”. In light of parentheses, it is not clear if the limitation inside the paratheses is required or optional. Further, it is not clear if the amount refers to amount of any number and type of polymers or if the amount refers to amount of polymers consisting of copolymer A and copolymer T. Additionally, it is not clear if “%” refers to “wt%”, “mol%” or “vol%”.
Claim 33 recites “polymers (copolymer A + copolymer T):tackifying resin(s) iii)”. In light of parentheses, it is not clear if the limitation inside the paratheses is required or optional. Further, it is not clear if weight ratio refers to weight ratio of any polymers to tackifying resin or if weight ratio refers to weight ratio of polymers consisting of copolymer A and copolymer T to tackifying resin.
Claim 36 recites “thin layers”. The term “thin” in claim 36 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 37 recites “thin layers”. The term “thin” in claim 37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 20, 21, 24-30, 32-34, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (WO 2021/127351 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Akai et al. (EP2112180A1).
Regarding claims 20, 21 and 24-29, Davis et al. disclose a hot-melt adhesive composition comprising at least 40 wt% of metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1 comprising at least 30 wt% of a first-metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1, a semi-crystalline polymer and a tackifying agent (see page 33, claim 1 and page 34, claim 14).
The metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1 includes a metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1-copolymer derived from at least 50 wt% of butene and less than 50 wt% of a-olefin comonomer such as ethylene (see page 7, lines 20-25). Given that the first-metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1 can be 100 wt%, the hot-melt adhesive composition comprises at least 40 wt% of the first-metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1 as the metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1, wherein the metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1 can be a metallocene-catalyzed polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A).
The semi-crystalline polymer includes propylene copolymers derived from propylene and a-olefin commoners such as ethylene and butene that can be used in combination (see page 9, lines 10-16). Therefore, the semi-crystalline polymer is propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (copolymer T). The amount of semi-crystalline polymer is 0 to 30 wt% in the hot-melt adhesive composition (see pages 10-11, lines 31-3). The semi-crystalline polymer has a heat of fusion from greater than 10 J/g to no greater than 58 J/g (page 5, lines 8-9).
The tackifying agent includes ESCOREZ 1310LC (see page 13, line 16), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 5, lines 34-35 of present specification). Further, ESCOREZ 1310LC is nonhydrogenated tackifying resin as presently claimed (see page 13, lines 9-11 of present specification). The amount of tackifying agent is 5 to 35 wt% in the hot-melt adhesive composition (see page 13, lines 25-29).
While Davis et al. disclose semi-crystalline propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer, Davis et al. do not disclose semi-crystalline propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer comprising more than 50 wt% of units derived from propylene.
Akai et al. disclose a propylene-based polymer comprising 65 to 80 mol% of a structural unit derived from propylene, 5 to 10 mol% of a structural unit derived from ethylene and 15 to 25 mol% of a structural unit derived from C4-C20 a-olefin (C4 reads on butene), and having a crystal fusion of 5 to 45 J/g (see Abstract and paragraphs 0018, 0019). That is, propylene-based polymer is propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer. As evidenced by Davis et al., the semi-crystalline polymer has a heat of fusion from greater than 10 J/g to no greater than 58 J/g (page 5, lines 8-9). Given that the propylene-based polymer has a crystal fusion of 5 to 45 J/g, the propylene-based polymer is a semi-crystalline polymer. The propylene-based polymer when used as adhesive to various adherends, shows a desired initial adhesion and will not contaminate adherends, and has excellent handling properties and good workability (see Abstract and paragraphs 0003, 0004).
Based on 65 to 80 mol% of propylene, the mass of propylene is 2735 to 3366 (2735 = 65 x 42.08 and 3366 = 80 x 42.08, 42.08 is MW of propylene). Based on 5 to 10 mol% of ethylene, the mass of ethylene is 140 to 281 (140 = 5 x 28.05 and 281 = 10 x 28.05, 28.05 is MW of ethylene). Based on 15 to 25 mol% of butene, the mass of butene is 842 to 1403 (842 = 15 x 56.11 and 1403 = 25 x 56.11, 56.11 is MW of butene). Accordingly, the total mass is 4419 (65 mol% propylene - 2735, 10 mol% ethylene - 281 and 25 mol% butene - 1403) to 4348 (80 mol% propylene - 3366, 5 mol% ethylene - 140 and 15 mol% butene - 842). Based on these amounts, the mass% of propylene is 61.9 to 77.4 wt% (61.9 = 2735/4419 x 100 and 77.4 = 3366/4348 x 100), mass of ethylene is 3.2 to 6.4 wt% (3.2 = 140/4348 x 100 and 6.4 = 281/4419 x 100) and mass of butene is 19.4 to 31.7 wt% (19.4 = 842/4348 x 100 and 31.7 = 1403/4419 x 100).
In light of motivation for using propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer disclosed by Askai et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer of Akai et al. as the semi-crystalline propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer in hot-melt adhesive composition of Davis et al. in order to provide a desired initial adhesion that does not contaminate adherends, and provide excellent handling properties and good workability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Davis et al. disclose the hot-melt adhesive composition, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. do not disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition. However, given that hot-melt adhesive composition of Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. comprises polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A), semi-crystalline propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (copolymer T) and non-hydrogenated tackifying resin identical to that presently claimed, with their amounts overlapping with that presently claimed, the hot-melt adhesive composition of Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. is identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, the hot-melt adhesive composition of Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. is necessarily inherently hot-melt self-adhesive composition.
Regarding claim 30, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. As noted above, Davis et al. disclose ESCOREZ 1310LC as the nonhydrogenated tackifying resin in the hot-melt adhesive composition. Given that ESCOREZ 1310LC can be the only tackifying agent present in the hot-melt adhesive composition (see page 13, line 5 and line 16), the hot-melt adhesive composition does not comprise a tackifying resin other than ESCOREZ 1310LC.
Regarding claim 32, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. As noted above, Davis et al. disclose at least 40 wt% of polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A) and 0 to 30 wt% of propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (copolymer T). Accordingly, a total content of copolymer A and copolymer T is 40 to 100 wt%.
Regarding claim 33, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. As noted above, Davis et al. disclose at least 40 wt% of polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A), 0 to 30 wt% of propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (copolymer T) and 5 to 35 wt% of tackifying resin. That is, a total content of copolymer A and copolymer T is 40 to 100 wt% and a content of tackifying resin is 5 to 35 wt%. According to the present claim, a weight ratio of polymers (copolymer A and copolymer T) is 40 to 90 wt% and tackifying resin is 10 to 60 wt%. Accordingly, Davis et al. meets present claim.
Regarding claim 34, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Further, Davis et al. disclose 0 wt% of amorphous polymers such as styrene block copolymers (see page 11, lines 4-12 and line 22).
Regarding claims 36 and 38, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Further, Davis et al. disclose hot-melt adhesive composition is useful to bond substrates (layers B and C) made from synthetic polymer fibers such as polypropylene fibers (thermoplastic material) (see page 14, line 26, line 30 and lines 17-19). Therefore, Davis et al. disclose a multilayer film comprising a first substrate made of thermoplastic material/hot-melt adhesive composition/a second substrate made of thermoplastic material. Although there is no explicit disclosure that the substrates are “thin”, given that the claim only broadly require “thin” layers with no specific recitation of thickness and given that the multilayer film of Davis et al. is used in packaging (see page 15, lines 2-3), the substrates are considered to be thin layers. The multilayer film (first substate/hot-melt adhesive/second substrate) is used to prepare boxes, i.e. reclosable packaging (see page 15, lines 2-3). That is, reclosable packaging comprises the multilayer film.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (WO 2021/127351 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Akai et al. (EP2112180A1) as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Wust et al. (EP0347741A2). It is noted that the disclosures of Wust et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 35, Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. do not disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition in form of granules of ellipsoidal shape as presently claimed.
Wust et al. discloses hot melt adhesives prepared having geometric shape including ellipsoidal shape (see paragraphs 0018-0019). The use of geometric shape reduces agglomeration and ensures pourability (see paragraph 0018).
Although there is no disclosure of the dimension of the major axis and minor axis of the ellipsoid, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the adhesive ellipsoid including to dimensions of the major axis and minor axis as presently claimed, based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said adhesive. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In light of motivation for using hot melt adhesive having ellipsoidal shape disclosed by Wust et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use hot melt adhesive having ellipsoidal shape, including having dimension of the major axis and minor axis as presently claimed, in Davis et al. in view of Akai et al. in order to produce a hot melt adhesive with reduced agglomeration and pourability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 20-29, 31-34, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heemann et al. (EP 3260512 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Akai et al. (EP2112180A1).
Regarding claims 20-29, Heemann et al. disclose a pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising 35 to 74 wt% of a butene-1-copolymer, 5 to 50 wt% of a liquid tackifier and 0 to 30 wt% of an olefin copolymer (see page 6, claim 1 and claim 6, and page 7, claim 10).
The butene-1-copolymer (copolymer A) comprises 85 to 100 mol% of butene and comonomer is ethylene (see page 6, claim 1 and page 2, lines 50-54). Accordingly, the amount of ethylene is 0 to 15 mol%. The broad range of mol% of butene and mol% of ethylene will necessarily overlap with wt% of butene and wt% of ethylene as presently claimed. The butene-1-copolymer has Mw/Mn (polydispersity index) of lower than 4 (see page 2, lines 57-58). The butene-1-copolymer has a shore A hardness of lower than 90 (see page 3, lines 7-8). The butene-1-copolymer has a melt index of at most 10 (see page 2, lines 55-56).
The liquid tackifier includes liquid hydrocarbon resin comprising polymerized structure derived from aliphatic petroleum derivatives containing 4 to 6 carbons, which can be optionally further hydrogenated (see paragraph 0014). That is, the liquid tackifier can be non-hydrogenated hydrocarbon resin comprising polymerized structure derived from aliphatic petroleum derivatives containing 4 to 6 carbons. This reads on non-hydrogenated tackifying resin as presently claimed.
While Heemann et al. disclose the olefin copolymer, Heemann et al. do not disclose the olefin copolymer is propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer.
Akai et al. disclose a propylene-based polymer comprising 65 to 80 mol% of a structural unit derived from propylene, 5 to 10 mol% of a structural unit derived from ethylene and 15 to 25 mol% of a structural unit derived from C4-C20 a-olefin (C4 reads on butene) (see Abstract and paragraphs 0018, 0019). That is, propylene-based polymer is propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer. The propylene-based polymer when used as adhesive to various adherends, shows a desired initial adhesion and will not contaminate adherends, and has excellent handling properties and good workability (see Abstract and paragraphs 0003, 0004).
Based on 65 to 80 mol% of propylene, the mass of propylene is 2735 to 3366 (2735 = 65 x 42.08 and 3366 = 80 x 42.08, 42.08 is MW of propylene). Based on 5 to 10 mol% of ethylene, the mass of ethylene is 140 to 281 (140 = 5 x 28.05 and 281 = 10 x 28.05, 28.05 is MW of ethylene). Based on 15 to 25 mol% of butene, the mass of butene is 842 to 1403 (842 = 15 x 56.11 and 1403 = 25 x 56.11, 56.11 is MW of butene). Accordingly, the total mass is 4419 (65 mol% propylene - 2735, 10 mol% ethylene - 281 and 25 mol% butene - 1403) to 4348 (80 mol% propylene - 3366, 5 mol% ethylene - 140 and 15 mol% butene - 842). Based on these amounts, the mass% of propylene is 61.9 to 77.4 wt% (61.9 = 2735/4419 x 100 and 77.4 = 3366/4348 x 100), mass of ethylene is 3.2 to 6.4 wt% (3.2 = 140/4348 x 100 and 6.4 = 281/4419 x 100) and mass of butene is 19.4 to 31.7 wt% (19.4 = 842/4348 x 100 and 31.7 = 1403/4419 x 100).
In light of motivation for using propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer disclosed by Akai et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (copolymer T) of Akai et al. as the olefin copolymer in the pressure sensitive adhesive composition of Heemann et al. in order to provide a desired initial adhesion that does not contaminate adherends, and provide excellent handling properties and good workability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition. Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. do not disclose a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition is a hot-melt self-adhesive composition.
While there is no disclosure that the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition is a hot-melt self-adhesive composition as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. hot-melt self-adhesive composition, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art pressure sensitive adhesive composition and further that the prior art structure which is a pressure sensitive adhesive composition identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding clam 31, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Given that hot-melt self-adhesive composition of Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. comprises polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A), propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (copolymer T) and non-hydrogenated tackifying resin identical to that presently claimed, with their amounts overlapping with that presently claimed, the hot-melt adhesive composition of Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. is identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, the hot-melt adhesive composition of Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. within the overlapping ranges, necessarily inherently has a melt flow index as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 32, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. As noted above, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose 35 to 74 wt% of polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A) and 0 to 30 wt% of propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (olefin copolymer or copolymer T). Accordingly, a total content of copolymer A and copolymer T is 35 to 100 wt%.
Regarding claim 33, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. As noted above, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose 35 to 74 wt% of polybutene-1/ethylene copolymer (copolymer A), 0 to 30 wt% of propylene-ethylene-butene copolymer (olefin copolymer or copolymer T) and 5 to 50 wt% of tackifying resin. That is, a total content of copolymer A and copolymer T is 35 to 100 wt% and a content of tackifying resin is 5 to 50 wt%. According to the present claim, a weight ratio of polymers (copolymer A and copolymer T) is 40 to 90 wt% and tackifying resin is 10 to 60 wt%. Accordingly, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. meets present claim.
Regarding claim 34, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Given that there is no disclosure of styrene block copolymer in Heemann et al., the amount of styrene block copolymer is 0 wt%.
Regarding claims 36 and 38, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Further, Heemann et al. disclose the pressure sensitive adhesive composition applied between two substrates made of polyethylene (thermoplastic material) (see paragraph 0025). The adhesive layer between two substrates reads on a multilayer film. Although there is no explicit disclosure that the substrates are “thin”, given that the claim only broadly require “thin” layers with no specific recitation of thickness and given that the multilayer film of Heemann et al. is used in packaging (see page 4, claims 12 and 13), the substrates are considered to be thin layers. Further, an article such as reclosable packaging can be prepared from the multilayer film (see page 4, claims 12 and 13).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heemann et al. (EP 3260512 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Akai et al. (EP2112180A1) as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Wust et al. (EP0347741A2). It is noted that the disclosures of Wust et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 35, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition as set forth above. Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. do not disclose the hot-melt self-adhesive composition in form of granules of ellipsoidal shape as presently claimed.
Wust et al. discloses hot melt adhesives prepared having geometric shape including ellipsoidal shape (see paragraphs 0018-0019). The use of geometric shape reduces agglomeration and ensures pourability (see paragraph 0018).
Although there is no disclosure of the dimension of the major axis and minor axis of the ellipsoid, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the adhesive ellipsoid including to dimensions of the major axis and minor axis as presently claimed, based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said adhesive. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In light of motivation for using hot melt adhesive having ellipsoidal shape disclosed by Wust et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use hot melt adhesive having ellipsoidal shape, including having dimension of the major axis and minor axis as presently claimed, in Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. in order to produce a hot melt adhesive with reduced agglomeration and pourability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heemann et al. (EP 3260512 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Akai et al. (EP2112180A1) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of Genske et al. (5,071,686).
Regarding claim 37, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. disclose a multilayer film comprising first substrate made of polyethylene/adhesive layer/second substrate made of polyethylene. Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. do not disclose the multilayer film as presently claimed.
Genske et al. disclose a multiple layer film comprising a first layer comprising polypropylene polymer, a second layer comprising polyethylene and a third layer comprising polypropylene layer (see col. 10, claims 1 and 2).The multilayer film has excellent tolerance to shock abuse (see col. 2, lines 21-23).
In light of motivation for using multiple layer film disclosed by Genske et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use multiple layer film as both the first substrate and the second substrate instead of the first substrate comprising polyethylene film and the second substrate comprising polyethylene film, respectively in Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. in order to provide excellent tolerance to shock abuse, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Heemann et al. in view of Akai et al. and Genske et al. disclose the multilayer film comprising polypropylene layer/polyethylene layer (layer B)/polypropylene layer (layer D)/adhesive layer (layer A)/polypropylene layer (layer E)/polyethylene layer (layer C)/polypropylene layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights