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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Amendments to the specification and claims 1, 18, 20, and 21, filed on April 28, 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 28 and 29 have been added and claims 4, 5, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-3, 6-18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 29 are pending.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the specification, made of record on page 3, paragraphs 6-7 of the office action mailed 03 November 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the response filed 28 April 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 20 and 21, made of record on page 4, paragraph 8 of the previous office action mailed has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 25 over Breese (U.S. Pub. 2015/0344754), made of record on page 4, paragraph 9 of the previous office action has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. Breese does not provide a specific example in which 1.6 parts of a crosslinking agent are combined with 100 parts of a polymer base as claimed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20 25, and 26 as over Grah (U.S. Pub. 2016/0046104), made of record on pages 5-6, paragraphs 10-11 of the previous office action has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. Grah does not teach or suggest using an amount of crosslinking agent which overlaps that used in the present claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 18 and 22-25 as over WO 2019/039306 in view of McGee (U.S. Pat. 8,530,608), made of record on page 12, paragraph 14 of the previous office action has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. Neither WO ‘306 nor McGee specify the use of a flame retardant additive.
NEW AND REPEATED 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is missing a terminal period. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites that the adhesive remains “permanently bonded” to the first and second substrates at 225 °C. The specification as filed does not recite this limitation or define the term. Instead, p. 7, [0032] of the originally filed disclosure describes a high temperature creep test performed at 225°C in which a 50 gram weight is hung from one end of a 2 inch wide x 10 inch long laminate with the top 1-2 inches not bonded and tested in the oven for 5 minutes, after which less than 1 inch of debonding indicates a passing result. Table 3 shows that the inventive examples pass this test. However, passing such a test is different in scope than “permanently bonded”. Thus the specification does not provide sufficient support for the claimed limitation, and the claim is considered to contain new matter. The new matter should be deleted.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) Reference in Dependent Forms. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claims, or amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claims in independent form.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Claim 1 recites that the first adhesive comprises 100 parts of polymer base comprising a polyolefin and 1.6 parts of a crosslinking agent mixed with the polyolefin. However, claims 14 and 15 broadens the amount of crosslinking agent present as they recites that the crosslinking agent comprises between about 0.01 weight percent and about 25 weight percent of the adhesive (in claim 14) and between about 1 to 15 weight percent of the adhesive (in claim 15). This does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 18 recites that the first adhesive comprises 100 parts of polymer base comprising an ethylene and/or propylene copolymer and 4.6 parts of a crosslinking agent along with 1.5 parts of surfactant and an unspecified amount of flame retardant. However, claim 20 broadens the amount of crosslinking agent present as it recites that the crosslinking agent comprises between about 1 to 15 weight percent of the adhesive. This does not further limit the subject matter of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Breese (U.S. Pub. 2015/0344754).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, and 17, 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]. The ethylene acrylic acid copolymer reads on the claimed polyolefin component of the polymer base.
However, Breese teaches more broadly that the adhesive includes from 1-2 wt. % of the crosslinker component, see p. 2, [0021].
It would have been obvious to have used 1.6 parts by weight of the crosslinker component in the adhesive composition based on 100 parts by weight of the base polymer in the adhesive composition to arrive at the claimed invention, as Breese teaches a suitable range of crosslinker which overlaps the claimed range. 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 the limitation that the crosslinking agent is capable of crosslinking with the polymer base during a heat lamination process, this is directed to a functional limitation of the crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent of Breese is considered to be capable of meeting this function.
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 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sonoda (WO 2019/230445 A1, with U.S. Pub. 2021/0002523 relied upon as the translation).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Sonoda discloses an adhesive composition used with polymer or metallic substrates, see abstract. The adhesive includes 100 parts by mass of an acid-modified polyolefin resin, 20-60 parts by mass of an epoxy resin, and a polycarbodiimide which serves as a crosslinking agent, see abstract. Sonoda teaches that the polycarbodiimide reacts with the carboxyl group of the acid-modified polyolefin resin to enhanced the interaction of the adhesive composition with the substrate, see p. 5, [0049]. A laminate is formed having the structure of (substrate / adhesive layer / substrate), see p. 6, [0067].
The amount of polycarbodiimide is in the range of 0.5 to 20 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the acid-modified polyolefin, see p. 5, [0050]. The amount of epoxy resin is in the range of 20-60 parts by mass, see p. 5, [0051]. Thus the amount of polycarbodiimide is in the range of 0.5 to 20 parts by mass out of 120 to 160 parts by mass of polymer base, which is a range of about 0.31 parts to 16.7 parts by mass of polycarbodimiide out of 100 parts by mass of polymer base.1 This overlaps the claimed range.
The laminate is formed by heat pressing the adhesive between two substrates, see p. 9, [0114]. The polycarbodiimide crosslinking agent is considered to be capable of crosslinking with the polymer base at these heat pressing conditions.
Regarding claim 2, the example laminates have a peeling force of 0.5 N/mm or more, 0.8 N/mm or more, or even 1.0 N/mm or more, see p. 9, [0115-0118] and results in Table 1 on p. 10. The 0.5 N/mm peeling force is equivalent to at least 2.85 lbf/inch which exceeds the claimed amount of 0.5 lbf/inch.
Regarding claim 3, Sonoda teaches performing a heat treatment at 140 °C to harden the adhesive laminate, see p. 9, [0114], and thus the substrates are considered to remain bonded at a temperature of 100 °C as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Sonoda teaches that one of the substrates may be a metal foil such as a copper foil or a plated alloy, see p. 1, [0006] and p. 7, [0071], which reads on a metallization layer.
Regarding claim 13, Sonoda teaches floating the adhesive laminate in a solder bath melted at 280 °C, see p. 9, [0120]. Thus the laminate is considered to remain boned without decomposition or delamination at temperatures of up to 200 °C as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Sonoda teaches heat treatment, drying, and pressing conditions for the laminate described at p. 9, [0114] with drying at 160 °C and heat treatment at 140 °C. Furthermore, Sonoda uses the same adhesive ingredients as claimed including an acid-modified polyolefin and a crosslinking agent. Thus the adhesive laminate is considered to meet the claimed activation temperature and crosslinking temperature limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Sonoda teaches using a graft-polymerized acid-modified polyolefin polymer of maleic anhydride with propylene-butene copolymer, see p. 12-13, [0163]. Sonoda also teaches that the propylene ingredient is the majority molar component of the polymer, see p. 2, [0020], being preferably 70 molar % or more.
Regarding claim 28, Sonoda teaches that suitable acid-modified polyolefins having melting temperatures in the range of 50 to 120 °C, most preferably from 70-90 °C, see p. 2, [0025]. Sonoda also teaches that the propylene ingredient is the majority molar component of the polymer, see p. 2, [0020], being preferably 70 molar % or more. Preparation Examples 1 and 3 uses a propylene-butene copolymer modified with maleic anhydride CO-1 or CO-3 each having a melt temperature of 80 °C, see p. 13, [0165].
While none of the example compositions of Sonoda use a blend of 50 parts of a propylene based maleated polyolefin with a polymer melt temperature of 70 °C and 50 parts of a propylene based maleated polyolefin with a polymer melt temperature of 80 °C, the reference does teach that the acid-modified polyolefins may be used either solely or two or more jointly in the adhesive composition, see p. 2, [0021]. Further, as noted above, the preferred melting temperatures of the maleated polyolefins are from 70-90 °C and the examples expressly use maleated propylene-based copolymers with a melting temperature of 80 °C. Thus, the teachings of Sonoda render obvious the 50/50 blend of two propylene-based maleated polyolefins with a melt temperature of 70 °C and 80 °C as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, Sonoda teaches floating the adhesive laminate in a solder bath melted at 280 °C, see p. 9, [0120]. Thus the laminate is considered to remain bonded at a temperatures of 225 °C as claimed.
Claims 1-7 and 13-17 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]. This overlaps the claimed amount of 1.6 parts of crosslinking agent based on 100 parts of polymer base.
Regarding the limitation that the crosslinking agent is capable of crosslinking with the polymer base during a heat lamination process, this is directed to a functional limitation of the crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent of Tsuchibuchi is considered to be capable of meeting this function.
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 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 and 15, 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].
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].
Regarding the limitation that the crosslinking agent is capable of crosslinking with the polymer base during a heat lamination process, this is directed to a functional limitation of the crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent of Tsuchibuchi is considered to be capable of meeting this function.
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, 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, 20, 21, 24, and 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) and Ogihara (U.S. Pub. 2018/0076421). 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 amount of 4.6 parts of crosslinking agent.
However, Tsuchibuchi does not also specify including 1.5 parts of a surfactant as claimed. Tsuchibuchi also does not specify a flame retardant.
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.
Neither Tsuchibuchi nor McGee teach the use of a flame retardant.
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]. The adhesive also optionally includes a fire retardant, antioxidant, antiblock agent and a tackifier, or other common additives, 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 common adhesive additives such as a fire retardant 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 an additive because this provides the desired property to the adhesive. There is a reasonable expectation of success in the combination as Ogihara similarly teaches a modified polyolefin resin based adhesive as does Tsuchibuchi.
Regarding claim 20, Tsuchibuchi teaches that the adhesive 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 crosslinking agent composition range of 1 to 15 wt. % of the adhesive.
Regarding claim 21, Tsuchibuchi 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 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 28 April 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 25 of record over Breese (U.S. Pub. 2015/0344754) have been considered with respect to the present 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. The arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Breese teaches the use of a polyamide rather than a polyolefin as claimed, and that Breese fails to disclose or suggest the use of a polyolefin in his adhesive. See p. 6-7 of the remarks.
The Examiner is not persuaded. Claim 1 requires a polymer base that comprises a polyolefin. Thus the polymer base need not entirely consist of a polyolefin, but a polyolefin must be present. As noted in the rejection, 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. Ethylene acrylic acid copolymer is a polyolefin. Note that ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer is one of the suitable materials for the polymer base recited in claim 17.
While Breese no longer anticipates the present claims, Breese does render the claims obvious for the reasons presented above. Accordingly, a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is presented over Breese.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 28 April 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 13-17, 20, 21, and 27 of record over WO 2019/039306 to Tsuchibuchi have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 as amended recites that the adhesive permanently bonds to the substates at 225 °C, and that Tsuchibuchi does not teach this limitation. See p. 8 of the remarks.
The Examiner is not persuaded, as claim 1 does not recite this limitation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., permanent bonding at 225 °C) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also appears to argue that the crosslinker is present in the olefin substrate but not in the adhesive composition, see arguments at p. 8-9 of the remarks. However, Tsuchibuchi clearly teaches that a crosslinker component is present in the adhesive composition, see p. 11, [0179].
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 28 April 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8-12 of record over WO 2019/039306 in view of Ogara (U.S. Pub. 2018/0076421) have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the additional reference does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Tsuchibuchi. However, Tsuchibuchi is not deficient as described above. Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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
1 Sample calculation: minimum of the range is 0.5 parts of polycarbodiimide to 160 parts of polymer base, or 0.5 / 160 × 100 = 0.31 parts by mass crosslinker per 100 parts of polymer base. Maximum of the range is 20 parts of polycarbodiimide to 120 parts of polymer base, or 20 / 120 × 100 = 16.7 parts by mass crosslinker per 100 parts of polymer base.
Prosecution Insights