RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status
Amendments to claims 1, 2, 5, 18, and 22-25, filed on 21 July 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 26-27 have been added and claim 19 has been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-18 and 20-27 are pending.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to claims 2, 5, and 23 made of record on page 3 paragraph 8 of the office action mailed 19 March 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the response filed 21 July 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 16-18, 21, 22, and 25 over WO 2017/067611 A1, made of record on page 4, paragraph 10 of the office action mailed 19 March 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 21 July 2025. In particular, WO ‘611 does not specify a crosslinking agent capable of crosslinking with the base polymer as presently claimed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 6-12 and 24 as over WO ‘611, made of record on page 8, paragraph 16 and of claims 4, 5, 22, and 23 as over WO ‘611 in view of Eckhardt (U.S. Pub. 2018/0298236) on p. 9, paragraph 18 the office action mailed 19 March 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 21 July 2025 as WO ‘611 does not specify a crosslinking agent capable of crosslinking with the base polymer as presently claimed and Eckhardt does not remedy this deficiency.
NEW AND REPEATED OBJECTIONS AND REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Page 5, paragraph [0027] of the disclosure refers to “substrate 230” in the fourth line of the paragraph, but it appears that “substrate 220” is intended.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 4, 5, 22, 23, and 27 refer to a tackifier and its amount, but no tackifier is described in the original specification as filed.
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.
Claims 20 and 21 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.
Claims 20 and 21 each purport to depend on claim 19, however claim 19 has been canceled. It is unclear which claim is intended to be further limited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted these claims to depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breese (U.S. Pub. 2015/0344754).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 25, Breese discloses a lamination adhesive which is a mixture of polyamide and ethylene acrylic acid copolymer along with a crosslinking agent, see abstract and p. 2, [0021] and claims 1 and 9. In Example 1, Breese teaches forming a laminate of biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (reading on the first substrate), a lamination adhesive comprising 48 wt. % polyamide, 21 wt. % ethylene acrylic acid copolymer, 28 wt. % polyurethane, and 2 wt. % isocyanate crosslinker (reading on the first adhesive), and a low linear density polyethylene film (reading on the second substrate). See p. 3, [0035].
Regarding claim 2, the bond strength of the example laminates in Breese shown in Table 1 and Table 3 on p. 4 are 2.8 N/in up to 7.8 N/in, which is from 0.63 lbs/in to 1.75 lbs/in.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 17, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grah (U.S. Pub. 2016/0046104).
Regarding claim 1, Grah discloses a laminate of two substrates (a polyester film and polypropylene article) and an adhesive between them, the adhesive comprising a modified polypropylene and a crosslinking agent. See abstract and p. 1, [0005-0007]. The base propylene polymer is modified with maleic anhydride as taught at p. 3, [0036-0037] and claim 5. The crosslinking agent is described at p. 4, [0040].
Regarding claim 2, the bond strength of the laminate is at least 4 lbs/in such as from 4.5 to 20 lbs/in, see p. 3, [0029]. This exceeds the claimed minimum of 0.5 lbs/in.
Regarding claim 3, Grah teaches that the laminates are stable at temperature of 121 °C, see p. 2, [0028].
Regarding claim 7, Grah teaches that the polyester film of the laminate can be bonded to a metallic article with a polyurethane adhesive, see p. 1, [0013] and p. 5-, [0062]. This reads on a metallized substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Grah teaches that the coated films can be exposed to heat at temperatures of from about 210-250 °C, see p. 7, [0078].
Regarding claims 17 and 25, The base propylene polymer is modified with maleic anhydride as taught at p. 3, [0036-0037] and claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 14, 15, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grah (U.S. Pub. 2016/0046104).
Regarding claim 6, Grah discloses a laminate of two substrates (a polyester film and polypropylene article) and an adhesive between them, the adhesive comprising a modified polypropylene and a crosslinking agent. See abstract and p. 1, [0005-0007]. The base propylene polymer is modified with maleic anhydride as taught at p. 3, [0036-0037] and claim 5. The crosslinking agent is described at p. 4, [0040].
Grah teaches that melamines are suitable crosslinking agents for the adhesive, see p. 4, [0040]. It would have been obvious to have used one of the disclosed suitable crosslinkers in the alternative to the oxazoline or carbodiimide-containing crosslinkers which are listed as preferred.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 20, Grah teaches that the adhesive comprises 30-95 wt. % of polymer and 5-70% of crosslinking agent, see p. 5, [0056] teaching adhesive agent to crosslinking agent ratios of from 3:7 to 20:1. These overlap the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 26, Grah discloses a laminate of two substrates (a polyester film and polypropylene article) and an adhesive between them, the adhesive comprising a modified polypropylene and a crosslinking agent. See abstract and p. 1, [0005-0007]. The base propylene polymer is modified with maleic anhydride as taught at p. 3, [0036-0037] and claim 5. The crosslinking agent is described at p. 4, [0040]. In addition to the adhesive agent and cross-linking agent, the coating can include an antiblocking agent, see p. 5, [0055]. Although there are no specific examples with an antiblocking agent, it would have been obvious to have included such an additive as this is disclosed as a suitable additive in Grah.
Claims 1-7, 13-17, 20, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/039306 A1. Tsuchibuchi (U.S. Pub. 2020/0410902) was relied upon as the translation of WO ‘306.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchibuchi describes a peel detection label that is a laminate of a backing, a pattern layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (X), and a substrate layer (Y) laminated in this order, see abstract and p. 1, [0009].
The pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include an olefin-based resin such as low density polyethylene or ethylene-alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer, see p. 10, [0162-0166]. It would have been obvious to have used an olefin-based resin as this is one of the specified suitable resins.
The adhesive also includes a crosslinking agent, see p. 11, [0179]. The amount of crosslinking agent is from 0.01 to 10 parts by mass or more preferably from 0.03 to 7 parts by mass based on 100 parts of the adhesive resin. See p. 11, [0183].
Regarding claim 2, the reference teaches that the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a peel strength of preferably 1.0 N/25 mm or more, preferably from 14.0 to 25.0 N/25mm. See p. 11, [0192]. This is from about 3.1 to 5.6 lbs/in.
Regarding claim 3, the reference teaches forming the adhesive laminate at a temperature of 125 °C, see p. 26, [0441]. Thus the laminate remains bonded at temperatures up to at least 100 °C.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tsuchibuchi teaches that a tackifier is also included in the adhesive composition as described at p. 10, [0169]. The amount of tackifier is preferably 1 to 40% by mass of the total amount of active components in the composition, see p. 11, [0177]. This amount overlaps the claimed range of 4-50 wt. %. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, the reference teaches using an aziridine-based crosslinking agent as a suitable crosslinking agent, see p. 11, [0181].
Regarding claim 7, the reference teaches including a metallization layer next to the adhesive layer and the substrate, see p. 3, [0044] and also p. 18, [0330].
Regarding claim 13, the reference teaches measuring the viscosity of the adhesive composition at temperatures up to 200 °C, see p. 24, [0412], thus it is presumed that the laminate will remain bonded at such temperatures.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 20, and 21, Tsuchibuchi teaches that the amount of crosslinking agent is from 0.01 to 10 parts by mass or more preferably from 0.03 to 7 parts by mass based on 100 parts of the adhesive resin. See p. 11, [0183]. Also, the amount of tackifier is preferably 1 to 40% by mass of the total amount of active components in the composition, see p. 11, [0177]. Thus the amount of polymer base and crosslinking agent are within the claimed ranges specified in claims 14 and 15.
Regarding claim 16, the reference teaches that the softening point of the tackifier is in the range of 60-170°C, most preferably from 70-150°C. See p. 10, [0174]. Thus the activation temperature for bonding the adhesive may start at 80 °C as claimed. Furthermore, the crosslinking reaction is presumed to take place during the drying of the adhesive which is disclosed to take place at temperatures of from 60-150 °C, see p. 23, [0391]. This is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, the reference teaches that the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include an olefin-based resin such as ethylene-alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer, see p. 10, [0162-0166].
Regarding claim 27, Tsuchibuchi describes a peel detection label that is a laminate of a backing, a pattern layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (X), and a substrate layer (Y) laminated in this order, see abstract and p. 1, [0009].
The pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include an olefin-based resin such as low density polyethylene or ethylene-alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer, see p. 10, [0162-0166]. The adhesive includes a crosslinking agent, see p. 11, [0179].
A tackifier is also included in the adhesive composition as described at p. 10, [0169]. The amount of tackifier is preferably 1 to 40% by mass of the total amount of active components in the composition, see p. 11, [0177]. This amount overlaps the claimed range of 20-50 wt. %. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/039306 A1 as applied above, and further in view of Ogihara (U.S. Pub. 2018/0076421). Tsuchibuchi (U.S. Pub. 2020/0410902) was relied upon as the translation of WO ‘306.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchibuchi describes a peel detection label that is a laminate of a backing, a pattern layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (X), and a substrate layer (Y) laminated in this order, see abstract and p. 1, [0009].
The pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include an olefin-based resin such as low density polyethylene or ethylene-alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer, see p. 10, [0162-0166]. It would have been obvious to have used an olefin-based resin as this is one of the specified suitable resins.
The adhesive also includes a crosslinking agent, see p. 11, [0179]. The amount of crosslinking agent is from 0.01 to 10 parts by mass or more preferably from 0.03 to 7 parts by mass based on 100 parts of the adhesive resin. See p. 11, [0183].
Tsuchibuchi also teaches including a metallization layer next to the adhesive layer and the substrate, see p. 3, [0044] and also p. 18, [0330].
However, Tsuchibuchi does not specify a second metallization layer applied to the first substrate, distal from the first metallization layer.
Ogihara describes a packaging material for a power storage device having a base layer, a first adhesive layer, a metal foil layer provided on one or both surfaces thereof, a second adhesive layer, and a sealant layer laminated in this order. See abstract and p. 2, [0016]. The metal foil layers read on metallization layers as claimed. See p. 6, [0069] for additional details of the metal foil layers.
The adhesive resin layer of Ogihara is also a modified polyolefin resin such as acid-modified polypropylene or anhydride-modified polypropylene, see p. 10, [0110-0113]. Polyethylene can also be used as a suitable adhesive resin, see id. The adhesive also optionally includes an antiblock agent and a tackifier, see p. 12, [0157].
Tsuchibuchi and Ogihara are analogous because they are similar in structure and composition, as they each disclose laminate structures with a polyolefin-based adhesive resin, metal layers, and substrate layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included a second metal layer in the adhesive laminate of Tsuchibuchi as disclosed in Ogihara in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a layer because this provides moisture resistance for the power storage device or other adherend while providing good processibility and low cost, see Ogihara at p. 6, [0069].
Regarding claim 9, Ogihara discloses the use of a second adhesive layer, see p. 2, [0016] and discussion at p. 16, [0214-0215]. See structure of FIG. 2 described at p. 5, [0048] and p. 16, [0213] which includes a base material layer 11, first adhesive layer 12, metal foil layer 13, anti-corrosion treatment layer 14, adhesive resin layer 15, sealant layer 16, and second adhesive layer 17. Multiple sealant layers 16a and 16b can also be used as in FIG. 3. The laminate is attached to a power storage device which reads on the third substrate.
Regarding claims 10-12, However, Ogihara teaches that the base material layer may be a multi-layer film with two or more layers co-extruded with an adhesive resin, see p. 5, [0050]. Using a plurality of such layers reads on multiple substrates and adhesive resins and a coating. Note that an adhesive layer may be considered a coating, or the anti-corrosion treatment layer 14 may also be considered to be the coating. See p. 5, [0048]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the multi-layer laminate as claimed using these additional substrate layers and additional adhesive and coating layers. Note that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 18 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/039306 A1 as applied above, and further in view of McGee (U.S. Pat. 8,530,608). Tsuchibuchi (U.S. Pub. 2020/0410902) was relied upon as the translation of WO ‘306.
Regarding claim 18, Tsuchibuchi describes a peel detection label that is a laminate of a backing, a pattern layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (X), and a substrate layer (Y) laminated in this order, see abstract and p. 1, [0009].
The pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include an olefin-based resin such as low density polyethylene or ethylene-alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer, see p. 10, [0162-0166]. It would have been obvious to have used an olefin-based resin as this is one of the specified suitable resins.
The adhesive also includes a crosslinking agent, see p. 11, [0179]. The amount of crosslinking agent is from 0.01 to 10 parts by mass or more preferably from 0.03 to 7 parts by mass based on 100 parts of the adhesive resin. See p. 11, [0183]. This overlaps the claimed range.
However, Tsuchibuchi does not also specify including 1.5 parts of a surfactant as claimed.
McGee describes a water-based adhesive composition for laminating polymeric films to a metal substrate in which the adhesive is an acid functional polyolefin or other material, see col. 3, lines 47-53. The adhesive has crosslinkable functional groups, see col. 3, lines 54-59. The adhesive also includes a surfactant, see col. 6, lines 15-20.
McGee gives an example shown in Table 10 which includes 1.2 parts of nonionic surfactant TERGITOL 15-S-20 and 56.9 parts of ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer (about 2.1 parts of surfactant per 100 parts by weight of resin) along with 41.9 parts by weight of deionized water, see col. 19 lines 1-8 and description of TERGITOL at col. 11, lines 22-30. In other examples shown in Table 1, 0.2 parts of silicone surfactant are used along with 91.8 parts by weight of emulsion resin (0.22 parts by weight of surfactant per 100 parts by weight resin), see col. 13. This teaches amounts of surfactant both lower than and higher than the claimed amount of 1.5 parts of surfactant based on 100 parts by weight of polymer base. It would have been obvious to have used an intermediate amount of surfactant between the lowest and highest amounts disclosed in McGee to arrive at the claimed amount of surfactant to arrive at the claimed invention.
Tsuchibuchi and McGee are analogous because they are similar in structure and composition, as they each disclose laminate structures with a polyolefin-based adhesive resin and crosslinking agent.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Tsuchibuchi teaches that a tackifier is also included in the adhesive composition as described at p. 10, [0169]. The amount of tackifier is preferably 1 to 40% by mass of the total amount of active components in the composition, see p. 11, [0177]. This amount overlaps the claimed range of 4-50 wt. %. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 24, Tsuchibuchi teaches using an aziridine-based crosslinking agent as a suitable crosslinking agent, see p. 11, [0181].
Regarding claim 25, Tsuchibuchi teaches that the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include an olefin-based resin such as low density polyethylene or ethylene-alkyl (meth)acrylate copolymer, see p. 10, [0162-0166]. It would have been obvious to have used an olefin-based resin as this is one of the specified suitable resins.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 21 July 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 25 of record over Breese (U.S. Pub. 2015/0344754) have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Breese does not teach the use of a polyolefin or a surfactant as allegedly recited in claim 1. However, a surfactant is not recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Breese does teach a polyolefin adhesive and crosslinker as described in the rejection above.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 21 July 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 13, 17, 18, and 25 of record over Grah (U.S. Pub. 2016/0046104) have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Grah does not teach the use of a polyolefin or a surfactant as allegedly recited in claim 1. However, a surfactant is not recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Grah does teach a polyolefin adhesive and crosslinker as described in the rejection above.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 21 July 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 6, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 24 of record over Grah have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant again argues that Grah does not teach the limitations of claim 1 and therefore these dependent claims are also allowable. However, Grah is not deficient as described above. Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant has not addressed the objections to the specification noted in the previous rejection. Thus, these objections are maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759