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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unverhau et al. (WO 2018/189686) in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2017/123488).
Regarding claims 1 and 9: Unverhau et al. teach a and adhesive composition that is capable of functioning in the claimed capacity comprising a crosslinked structure of a crosslinked structure of 65 to 85 wt% of a first carboxy-containing acrylic polymer (claim 7) with a Tg of between -60°C and -20°C (claim 5); and 1 to 35 wt% of a second carboxy-containing acrylic polymer (claim 7) with a Tg of between 2°C and 60°C (claim 5), and wherein the second acrylic polymer is obtained by polymerization of a second acrylic monomer and acrylic acid (page 23, lines 5-16), and the acrylic acid accounts for 17 to 23 wt% (page 22, lines 8-11). Unverhau et al. teach that a change transfer agent may be added to obtain the desired molecular weight (page 10, lines 6-7).
The ranges taught overlap the claimed ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Unverhau et al. fail to teach the claimed molecular weight.
However, Zhang et al. teach an analogous polymer in an analogous composition, which has a molecular weight of from 400,000 to 3,000,000 Da to obtain sufficient cohesive strength and good anti-warping properties (page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a molecular weight of from 400,000 to 3,000,000 Da as taught by Zhang et al. as the molecular weight of the carboxy containing acrylic polymer of Unverhau et al., and to optimize the molecular weight for the desired cohesive strength and anti-warping properties. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2-3: Since the composition is the same as claimed, it will possess the claimed properties. The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Regarding claim 5: Unverhau et al. teach that the acrylic acid accounts for 0.5 to 6 wt% (page 20, lines 4-8).
Regarding claims 6 and 8: Unverhau et al. teach the claimed monomers (page 23, lines 5-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 16-21 are allowed. Unverhau et al. fail to teach a diaphragm membrane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has made the argument that Unverhau et al. fail to teach the claimed molecular weight. This is not persuasive because the claimed molecular weight is not critical, and it is obvious in view of Zhang et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a molecular weight of from 400,000 to 3,000,000 Da as taught by Zhang et al. as the molecular weight of the carboxy containing acrylic polymer of Unverhau et al., and to optimize the molecular weight for the desired cohesive strength and anti-warping properties. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights