DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Application
Applicants' arguments/remarks filed 04/27/2026 are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are examined on the merits within and are currently pending.
Modified Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992).
Hatanaka et al. teach a patch comprising a support layer and an adhesive layer,
wherein the adhesive layer comprises diclofenac sodium (a drug) and dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO) (Abs). A styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer is used as the adhesive layer of a
patch (pg. 10, right column, 3rd last par.). The obtained patches were evaluated for the crystallization of diclofenac and diclofenac sodium; the results are shown in Table 2 together with the adhesive layer compositions. In addition, the value in a parenthesis represents the mass part of each component (dimethyl Sulfoxide or citric acid) when diclofenac sodium in the adhesive layer of each example or comparative example was made one mass part. Dimethyl sulfoxide, samples 1-4, 3-7%. The adhesive layers comprise diclofenac sodium, dimethyl sulfoxide and a mass ratio between the diclofenac sodium and the dimethyl sulfoxide (mass of
diclofenac sodium:mass of dimethyl sulfoxide) is 1:0.75 to 1:3. (Table 2, Col. 11 lines 30-Col. 12, lines 1-6). Or a mass ratio between the dimethyl sulfoxide and the diclofenac sodium (mass of dimethyl sulfoxide:sodium:mass of diclofenac) is 3:1 to 0.75:1 or 1:0.33 to 1:1.33.
Takada et al. teach skin patch comprising a support layer and an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer comprises diclofenac sodium (a drug), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (57) and thermoplastic elastomer like rubber type adhesive, styrene-based block copolymers, which can be styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymers (triblock), styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymers (triblock), styrene-butadiene rubbers (diblock), and styrene-isoprene rubbers. One of these may be used alone, or a plurality of these may be used in combination. (0029) or acrylic type adhesive, silicone type adhesive. (0031).
Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. do not teach the thermoplastic elastomer, a styrene-based block copolymer has a triblock content of 35%-65%.
Nakajima et al. teach three samples of styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) triblock copolymers, to determine pressure sensitive adhesives, tack, room-temperature peel-strength, and failure temperature under static shear. Three samples of styrene-isoprene-styrene ( S-I-S ) block copolymers were chosen; copolymer A had 25% styrene, and copolymers B and C had 14% styrene. (Synopsis). A and B contained 20% diblock and C contained 40% diblock polymer. (Abs), which can provide that the A and B contained 80% triblock and C contained 60% triblock polymer. In shear adhesion failure temperature test, A, B and C have 44 or 52% SIS. (Table II, pg. 1439), which means total polymer including triblock and deblock copolymers in the adhesive layer, so the triblock percentage in the adhesive polymer is calculated as following:
A or B triblock % = 80% x 44 or 52% = 35.2 or 41.2% triblock in the adhesive,
C triblock % = 60% x 44 or 52% = 26.4 or 31.2% triblock in the adhesive.
Polymer A or B still has the triblock % within the applicant claim 1 limitation: 35%-58%.
Polymer C has the triblock percentage outside the applicant claim limitation: 35%-58%.
Tack, Peel & Shear can define bond between two surfaces.
For Polyken Probe Tack Test (to define bond between two surfaces) results were high tack for polymers A, B & C with 35-60%. (Figure 1, pg. & 1439), which provide high tack for polymers A, B & C at:
A or B: 35-60 x 80% triblock = 28-48% and
C: 35-60 x 60% triblock = 21-36%
For Quick Stick test, polymer A, B & C with % SIS 40-65%. (Figure 2, pg. 1440), shows where quick stick values remain high at around 36-60% for 3 polymers:
Polymer A at 36-60% polymer x 80% triblock = 28.8-48% triblock
Polymer B at 36-60% polymer x 80% triblock = 28.8-48% triblock
Polymer C 36-60% polymer x 60% triblock = 21.6-36% triblock
Hatanaka et al. teach in patches that are on the market or are being developed is used
in the form of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, particularly a sodium salt from the standpoints
of improving its stability, suppressing reduction in physical properties (intensity, elasticity,
durability, adhesiveness, and the like). (pg. 10, left col., lines 35-40). From the standpoint that
the attachability of a patch to the skin is more easily secured, one having elasticity such as a
woven fabric is preferable; from the standpoint of easy handling of the patch, one having self-supportability (such as a film or a sheet-like forming product) is preferable. (pg. 13, left col., line
35-50).
Takada et al. teach the adhesive layer is normally formed onto one surface of the support layer and allows for its attachment to the skin, and it is a layer comprising an adhesive having pressure-sensitive adhesiveness and diclofenac sodium to be absorbed percutaneously. (0018). From the standpoint that the attachability of a patch to the skin is more easily secured, one having elasticity such as a woven fabric is preferable; from the standpoint of easy handling of the patch. (0038). The adhesive force which is sufficient to make attachment easy and which does not allow for being peeled during the attachment is secured. (0040). A patch was evaluated in skin permutation test (0046), which is to test patch attachment of several possible variations, in which a set or number of things can be ordered or arranged.
Elasticity is the ability of a material to deform under an applied force and then return to its original shape once that force is removed and is the property that enables extending and contracting in response to motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer with a triblock content of 35% to 65%, taught by Nakajima et al., and dimethyl sulfoxide and diclofenac sodium; where dimethyl sulfoxide mass % is 3-7%, a mass ratio between the dimethyl sulfoxide and the diclofenac sodium 1:0.33 to 1:1.33, taught by Hatanaka et al., and it prefers to have elasticity taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., since they have proven this range of triblock content would provide good adhesiveness for the transdermal patch.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992) and further in view of Wibaux et al. (WO 2009102933 Al).
The teachings of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. are described in the claim 1 above.
Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. do not teach the adhesive layer has a viscosity of 450 Pa·s to 900 Pa·s at 60°C.
Wibaux et al. teach a thermoplastic elastomer comprising a blend of clear linear triblock
and deblock copolymer based on styrene and ethylene-butylene with a bound styrene of 14%
mass (0039). The liquid rubbers typically have a molecular weight of 25,000 to 50,000, and a
viscosity at 38°C of 50 to 10,000 Pa.s. A block copolymer of styrene and isoprene having a
styrene content of about 13% and an isoprene content of about 87%, a glass transition of about -
60°C., a melt viscosity of about 240 Pa.s at 50°C and which is commercially available from Shell
Chemical Company as LIR310, is particularly useful in the practice of the invention. Within the
adhesive material, in one embodiment, the weight ratio of solid rubber to liquid rubber is in the
range from about 100: 1 to about 1 :2, and is varied in order to obtain the desired degree of
adhesiveness and tackiness. In one embodiment, the weight ratio of solid rubber to liquid rubber
is in the range from about 50:1 to about 5:1, and in another embodiment, from about 20:1 to
about 10:1. (0040). The method of viscosity measurement would be provided by Shell Chemical Company.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a
backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having a triblock content of about 35% - 65%, taught by Nakajima et al. and to have the adhesive layer has a viscosity near the range of 450 Pa· s to 900 Pa· s at 60°C, taught by Wibaux et al., since they have proven that and since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that viscosity depends on temperature, method of measurement, molecular weights of polymers and percentage of styrene copolymer, so their results can be varied accordingly.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992) and further in view of Gu et al. (CN 107429036 A).
The teachings of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. are described in the claim 1 above.
Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. do not teach the adhesive layer has a melt flow rate of 1.1 to 2 g/10 min at 60°C.
Gu et al. teach a thermoplastic elastomer mixture comprising polyisoprene containing
soft block of the hydrogenated styrene-based block copolymer, styrene-isobutylene-styrene
triblock copolymer (Abs). The report producer, HYBRAR KL-7125 copolymer of tangent 8 of
the peak temperature is -5°C, the melt flow rate (MFR) at 230°C, 2.16 kg load at 4g/10 minutes
(pg. 7, 3rd par.).
And Gu et al. teach that a styrenic block copolymer can have different molecular weights
from a relatively low to a relatively high average molecular weight of more than 75000,
preferably more than 200000, of about 75000 to about 1 million, or in the range of about 500000
to about 75000, a weight average molecular weight in the range of about 200000 to about 1
million, or in the range of about 500000 to about 200000 (pg. 6, 3rd last par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a
backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having a triblock content of 35% - 65%, taught by Nakajima et al. and to have the adhesive layer has a melt flow rate the melt flow rate (MFR) at 230°C, 2.16 kg load at 4g/10 minutes taught by Gu et al, since they prove that and since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a melt flow rate depends on temperature, molecular weights of polymers and percentage of styrene copolymer so their results can be varied accordingly.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992) and further in view of Mckay et al. (Mckay et al., The Influence of Styrene Butadiene Diblock Copolymer on Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene Triblock Copolymer Viscoelastic Properties and Product Performance, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 56, Iss. 8, 23 May 1995, pg. 947-958).
The teachings of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al.are described in the claim 1 above.
Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. do not teach the adhesive layer has a loss tangent of 0.53 to 0.8 at 1 Hz.
McKay et al. teach quantitatively that the presence of the styrene-isoprene (SI) diblock
copolymer in the styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) triblock copolymer results in a linear increase in
the loss tangent and decrease in elasticity." (pg. 2, left col., 2nd par.). The influence of the diblock is quantitatively defined in the loss tangent and order-disorder transition of the neat copolymer. (pg. 2, right col., 3rd par.). Mckay et al. provided data of loss of tangent by different temperatures in the thermoplastic elastomer from about 1-0.1 (pg. 4, Fig. 1) and loss of elastic response by different composition in the thermoplastic elastomer. The loss of tangent increases from about 0.05-0.12 with decreasing of triblock copolymer (pg. 4, Fig. 2, pg. 5, left col., 1st par.). This loss in elastic response is described quantitatively in Figure 11 (pg. 10), where the loss tangent measured at 25°C and 1 rad/s is plotted vs. the diblock content in the triblock/diblock blends for both the neat polymers and the hot-melt adhesives. (pg. 9, right col., 2nd last par.). Tangent delta loss from around 0.1-0.3 or higher when the triblock percentage is decreased (Fig. 11, Pg. 10). With the extrapolation of Figure 11, it is obvious that with lower percentage of triblock copolymers, loss of tangent could be higher and up to 0.5 - 0.8 and especially with higher temperature than 25°C that the McKay's studies. The rheological measurements were performed on a Rheometrics dynamic mechanical spectrometer,
RDS-11. (pg. 949, left col. last par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a
backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having a triblock content of 35% - 65%, taught by Nakajima et al. and to have a loss tangent up to close to 0.5- 0.8, taught by Mckay et al, because they proved that and since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that tangent loss depends on working frequency, temperature, molecular weights of polymers and percentage of styrene copolymer and their results can be varied accordingly.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992) and further in view of Wibaux et al. (WO 2009102933 Al) and Gu et al. (CN 107429036 A).
The teachings of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al.are described in the claim 1 above.
The teaching of Wibaux et al. is described in claims 1 and 2 above.
The teaching of Gu et al. is described in claims 1 and 3 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a
backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having a triblock content of 35% - 65%, taught by Nakajima et al. and to have the adhesive layer has a viscosity near the range of 450 Pa·s to 900 Pa·s at 60°C, taught by Wibaux et al., and to have the adhesive layer has a melt flow rate close to 1.1 to 2 g/10 min at 60°C taught by Gu et al, since they prove that and since one of ordinary skill in the art knows that viscosity depends on temperature, method of measurement, molecular weights of polymers and percentage of styrene copolymer, so their results can be varied accordingly.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992) and further in view of Wibaux et al. (WO 2009102933 Al) and Mckay et al. (Mckay et al., The Influence of Styrene-Butadiene Diblock Copolymer on StyreneButadiene- Styrene Triblock Copolymer Viscoelastic Properties and Product Performance, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 56, Iss. 8, 23 May 1995, Pg. 947-958).
The teachings of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al.are described in the claim 1 above.
The teaching of Wibaux et al. is described in claims 1 and 2 above.
The teaching of Mckay et al. is described in claims 1 and 4 above
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a
backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having a triblock content of 35% - 65%, taught by Nakajima et al. and to have the adhesive layer has a viscosity near the range of 450 Pa·s to 900 Pa·s at 60°C, taught by Wibaux et al., and a loss tangent of 0.5-0.8 at 1 Hz, taught by Mckay et al, because they have proven that and since also one of ordinary skill in the art can knows that a melt flow rate depends on the polymer composition, the molecular weights of the polymers and a loss tangent, which depends on working frequency, temperature, and the molecular weights of
the polymers so their results can be varied accordingly.
Claims 1, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (US 9,308,187 B2) or Takada et al. (EP 2865378 A1) in view of Nakajima et al. (Nakajima et al., Rheology, Composition, and Peel-Mechanism of Block Copolymer-Tackifier-Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 44, 1437-1456, 1992) and further in view of Gu et al. (CN 107429036 A) and of Mckay et al. (Mckay et al., The Influence of Styrene-Butadiene Diblock Copolymer on Styrene-ButadieneStyrene Triblock Copolymer Viscoelastic Properties and Product Performance, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 56, Iss. 8, 23 May 1995, Pg. 947-958).
The teachings of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. are described in the claims 1 and 5 above.
The teaching of Gu et al. is described in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
The teaching of Mckay et al. is described in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to prepare a transdermal patch comprising an adhesive layer on a
backing, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a drug, DMSO, and an adhesive base, taught by Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al., wherein the adhesive base comprises a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer having a triblock content of 35% - 65%, taught by Nakajima et al. and to have the adhesive layer has a melt flow rate the melt flow rate (MFR) at 230°C, 2.16 kg load at 4g/10 minutes taught by Gu et al, and to have has a loss tangent of 0.53 to 0.8 at l Hz taught by Mckay et al. since they have proven those, and one of ordinary skill in the art knows that a melt flow rate depends on the polymer composition, the molecular weights of the polymers and a loss tangent depends on working frequency, temperature, and the molecular weights of the polymers, so their results can be varied accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues that polymers A, B, and C in Nakajima have triblock contents (i.e., the ratio of
S-1-S triblock copolymer to the total amount of S-I-S triblock and S-I di block copolymers) of 80% and 60%, respective, which fall outside of the presently claimed triblock content of the styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer to 35% to 58%,
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since Nakajima teaches polymer A or B with triblock percentage in the adhesive layer within the range of claim 1 limitation of 35-58%. Please see the details in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Nakajima does not include DMSO, it is clear that Nakajima et al. cannot effectively be used to address the specific problem caused by the inclusion of DMSO; i.e., the loss of adhesiveness due to the presence of DMSO.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the basis for 103 rejection is that no one reference has to teach all the claim limitations for an obviousness rejection and therefore several references are combined to render the claims obvious. One with ordinary skill in the art can learn from and select specific parts of several prior arts’ teachings before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve better outcome results even though some prior arts may teach more and may teach different things. Hatanaka et al. teach a patch comprising a support layer and an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer comprises diclofenac sodium (a drug) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (Abs). A styrene-isoprene-styrene triblock copolymer is used as the adhesive layer of a patch (pg. 10, right column, 3rd last par.). Nakajima teaches triblock Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene ( S-I-S ), with specific percentages, while Hatanaka and Takada do not. The idea to use triblock Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene to improve adhesive force are taught by Hatanaka and Takada and specific percentages 35-65% of triblock Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene provides better adhesion is taught by Nakajima.
Applicant argues that specifically, the Kamakura declarations submitted on 7/3/2025 and 12/9/2025 included additional experimental results showing better adhesiveness to actual skin as
compared with the patches disclosed by Hatanaka and supplement the evidence found in the instant application as filed. As such, unexpected results not found in the cited art exist with regard to the presently claimed subject matter. the inventors discovered that the presently claimed adhesive base results in a transdermal patch which is unlikely to peel off of skin, even when the skin is extended and contracted during motion.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because Applicant provides unexpected results comparing to Hatanaka’s results (17433289-AF_D_132_2025-07-03/ Declaration filed on July 3, 2025), modification of the office action of Final Rejection, 09/09/2025, Nakajima et al. teach three samples of styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) triblock copolymers, to determine pressure sensitive adhesives, tack, room-temperature peel-strength, and failure temperature under static shear. Three samples of styrene-isoprene-styrene ( S-I-S ) block copolymers were chosen; For Polyken Probe Tack Test (to define bond between two surfaces) results were high tack for polymers A, B & C with A or B having 44 or 52% of styrene polymer, where,
A has highest tack at 40-44%, which has 32-35.2% of triblock,
B 36-40%, which has 28-32% of triblock, and
C 36-40%, which has 21.6-39% of triblock. (Figure 1, pg. & 1439).
For Quick Stick test, which show high ability of an adhesive to form and instantaneous bond with minimal pressure or high initial grab polymer A, B & C with % SIS 28-60%. (Figure 2, pg. 1440).
For Quick Stick test, polymer A, B & C with % SIS 40-65%. (Figure 2, pg. 1440), shows where quick stick values remain high at around 36-60% for 3 polymers:
Polymer A at 36-60% polymer x 80% triblock = 28.8-48% triblock
Polymer B at 36-60% polymer x 80% triblock = 28.8-48% triblock
Polymer C 36-60% polymer x 60% triblock = 21.6-36% triblock
One with ordinary skill in the art can learn composition of the patch from both Hatanaka or Takada, and from Nakajima et al. and select has a triblock content of 35% to 65%, (which include 80% triblock and 20% diblock copolymers) A or B has 28-55% triblock) to achieve better outcome results. One with skill in the art could learn from. Applicant submitted the 1st Affidavit 17433289-AF_D_132_2025-07-03, comparing Hatanaka Example 1, 7 and 9 having longer peeling distances (pg. 4) than those of applicant’s Example 1, 2, and 3 (pg. 5), to prove applicant limitations in claim 1 of 35-65% of triblock styrene polymer provide better transdermal patch. However, i). Nakajima provides good results of Polyken Probe Tack Test and Quick Stick test, some with percentages within range of the applicant’s claim 1 limitation. One with ordinary skill in the art can learn from and select specific parts of several prior arts’ teachings before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve better outcome results even though some prior arts may teach more and may teach different things. In this case Nakajima also teach the effects of both the triblock and diblock styrene polymers on both bond between two surfaces and adhesive to form and instantaneous bond with minimal pressure or high initial grab and one with skill in the art, is known for solving the same problem, is represented with design choices, may modify the teachings of the prior arts until they can achieve better outcome results.
Applicant argues that Wibaux et al., Gu et al. or McKay et al. do not cure the above identified
defect of Hatanaka et al. or Takada et al. combined with Nakajima et al.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the combination of Hatanaka et al., Takada et al. and Nakajima et al. do not defects as explain above. The ideas of DMSO, taught by Hatanaka et al., of diblock and triblock styrene copolymer, in combination with DMSO taught by Takada et al. and the percentages of triblock taught by Nakajima, as explained above. One with skill in the art, is known for solving the same problem, is represented with design choices, may modify the teachings of the prior arts until they can achieve better outcome results.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights