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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-14 withdrawn
Claims 1 and 11 amended
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 pending
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 1-10, 15-20 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 1 states “wherein the broadside end portions are cut off in a later process step after by cutting them off a resulting roll or during transport of the web-shaped substrate”. However, it is unclear what is meant by “…are cut off in a later process step after by cutting them off a resulting roll or during transport…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traser (PG Pub 2014/0154485 A1) in view of Hamer (US Pat. 6,928,794 B2).
Consider Claim 1, Traser teaches the process of the process of forming pressure sensitive adhesive film [0003]. Traser teaches the formation process to include;
providing a substrate [0030], where the substrate is web shape substrate [0194];
providing curable liquid precursor of a polymer and application of liquid precursor polymer onto the substrate surface [0033], where the curable liquid precursor comprises (meth) acrylate components [0141], including (meth) acrylate monomer, (meth) acrylate oligomer, and or (meth) acrylate polymer [0142], where the liquid precursor is essentially solvent free (< 5 % wt.) [0139], and where the liquid precursor comprises photoactivable polymerization initiator [0150];
where the coated liquid precursor layer is led through (transported) a curing station (predetermined transport path), such as UV curing (electromagnetic radiation) and the curing (polymerization step) is effected onto the liquid precursor layer [0169];
where the polymerization (activation step) of the photo initiator within the liquid precursor compound is activated using electromagnetic radiation (such as ultraviolet wavelength) [0152], during the transporting step of the web shape substrate [0169],
and curing of the precursor/polymerization of the pressure sensitive adhesive composition on the web shape substrate is obtained [0035], in the transporting step of the web shape substrate [0169].
Traser teaches the coating apparatus is used in the process of form the pressure adhesive tape having a substrate (5) and release liner (11) ([0219], figures 1-2), where the substrate (5) is web shape substrate [0094], as first flexible boundary, and the release liners (11) is second flexible boundary formed by membrane extending an at least section parallel to the web shape substrate (figure 1). Traser teaches the process of polymerization/curing using UV radiation in the coating apparatus (reaction chamber) using the UV curing station [0152], while within the UV curing station the liquid precursors that is placed between the release liner, in the disclosed examples [0221]. Leading to having a polymerization process occurred between first flexible boundary of web shape substrate (5) and at second flexible boundary of release liner (11) as two sections of flexible boundaries, where the polymerization/curing is carried out in reaction apparatus using ultraviolet station.
Traser does not teach the broadside end portions of the first and second flexible boundaries are connected to each other in such a way that across-section perpendicular to the transport path of the web-shaped substrate has a circumference completely closed by the flexible boundaries, as claimed.
However, Hamer is in the prior art of forming pressure sensitive adhesive (claim 1) including the polymerization of the polymerizable pressure sensitive adhesive (claim 1, step G), teaches the process of continuously moving a web (4) having opposite sheets (22) (1st flexible boundary and 2nd flexible boundary) in a transport path to horizontal sealing station (18) (figure 2), sealing the broadsides end portion of the 1st flexible boundary with the 2nd flexible boundary by connecting them through sealing process resulting in having a cross-section perpendicular to the transport path of the web shape substrate closing completely the flexible boundaries surrounding inner portion in a circumference (figures 3-5).
Additionally, Hamer teaches the broadside end portions (transverse seals 32) are readily separated into individual filled pouches or bags by transversely cutting perforating (Col. 5, lines 62-66), where it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person that the broadside end portions are cut off in a later process step, as desired, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
1025
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Traser with Hamer performing the above step, to provide with a filled sealed pouches from a continuously moving sealable web (abstract).
Consider Claim 2, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the liquid precursor comprises (meth) acrylate components [0141], including (meth) acrylate monomer, (meth) acrylate oligomer, and or (meth) acrylate polymer [0142], and additionally comprises cross-linking compounds [0146] as where the cross-linking agents/compounds are thermal activated as the electromagnetic radiation activation is optional (Traser stated that cross-linking compounds “may achieve” using high-energy radiation, gamma radiation or e-beam radiation), as the cross-linking compounds are thermal/moisture activated [0147]. Therefore, the selected cross-linking agent cannot be activated using electromagnetic radiation, electron beams/accelerated ions, but instead activated using thermal or moisture.
Consider Claim 3, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the liquid precursor is essentially free of solvent [0139].
Consider Claims 9 and 19, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the liquid precursor compound having a solvent that is less than two parts per hundred (pph), and preferably solvent free [0139].
Consider Claims 4 and 15, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the photo initiator to include benzoin derivatives such as benzoin isopropyl ether with amount between 0.01-2.00 pph [0150]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
The Consider Claims 5 and 16, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the cross-linking agent is in the amount of 0.01- 10.0 parts per hundred (pph) [0149], and where the cross-linking agents/compounds includes silane compounds (organo-functional silane) [0147]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 6-7 and 17, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the absent of resin within the liquid precursor compounds, as resin-free with 0%. Therefore the “up to 50%” encompasses the 0%, as “up to 50%” include the range from 0.0% up to 50%.
Consider Claims 9 and 19, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the liquid precursor compound having a solvent that is less than two parts per hundred (pph), and preferably solvent free [0139]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 10 and 20, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the substrate is carbon fiber web, woven or nonwoven web [0194].
Claim(s) 8 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traser (PG Pub 2014/0154485 A1) in view of Hamer (US Pat. 6,928,794 B2), in further view of Bieber (PG Pub 2016/0152871 A1).
Consider Claims 8 and 18, the combined Traser (with Hamer) teaches the coating area is between 50-1500 micron [0051].
The combined Traser (with Hamer) does not teach the coating amount on the area resulting in the claimed g/m2 value.
However, Bieber is in the prior art of forming pressure sensitive adhesive layer comprising (meth) acrylate compounds (abstract) where the(meth) acrylate compounds as addressed as cross-linking additives [0041] equivalent to the claimed precursor compound of the pressure sensitive adhesive composition not the claimed cross-linking compound, teaches the process of applying coating material onto a substrate where the coating weight is between 200 and 1200 g/m² [0070]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Traser (with Hamer) with Bieber to apply the liquid coating precursor onto a substrate where the claimed amount, to allow the polymerization using irradiation (such as e-beam acceleration) using suitable irradiation dose injunction where the suitable e-beam acceleration tension [0070].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10, 15-20 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Traser with Hamer.
The previously applied 112b claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn. However, in light of the currently amended claims, new 112b claim rejection are now applied.
The applicant argued against the rejection using the combination of Traser with Hamer, on the ground that “For example, the longitudinal connections between the thermoplastic films described in Hamer must be sufficiently stable to permanently protect the adhesive and prevent leakage. This does not suggest, and instead contradicts, the proposed combination with the teaching of Traser.” Additionally. The applicant stated “It is not reasonable to suggest that the adhesive could polymerise in these portion bags. Instead, the purpose of the bags described in Hamer is to prevent undesirable polymerisation of the adhesive in the bag over the long term.”.
However, the applicant did not show/state what in Traser disclosure that would “contradict” Hamer. Moreover, Hamer clearly disclose the polymerisation step “The machine is particularly suited for making liquid filled pouches such as pouches filled with a liquid monomer mixture that can be polymerized to form an adhesive” Col. 4, lines 7-8. Where Hamer does not disclose the process of “prevent undesirable polymerisation of the adhesive in the bag” as argued.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights