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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Everaerts (U.S. 20040202881).
Everaerts teaches hot melt adhesives based on ABA block copolymers. Table 2 ¶[0153] teaches a MMA-iOA-MMA block copolymer (1H) with 5,000 weight average molecular weight MMA ends (A blocks) with isoctyl acrylate (C8 of claimed Formula 1) B block of 140,000 weight average molecular weight.
The A blocks anticipate the MMA block (A) block of Claim 1.
The B block anticipates the B block of Claim 1 as the isooctyl acrylate is a 100% ( the entire block, therefore, mol or weight) of the B block with a R1 = C8 organic group.
The weight average molecular weight is reasonably suggested to be 5000 + 140,000 + 5000 = 150,000 g/mol. (¶[0129] teaches the molecular weights are weight average) which anticipates the range of Claim 1.
The mass % of the terminal A blocks is 10,000/150,000 * 100 = 6.6 % which anticipates the range of Claim 1 and Claim 2.
Additionally, 1G of the Table 2 is weight average molecular weight is reasonably suggested to be 7000 + 100,000 + 7000 = 114,000 g/mol. (¶[0129] teaches the molecular weights are weight average) which anticipates the range of Claim 1. The mass % of terminal blocks is 14,000/114,000 * 100 = 12.2 % which anticipates the range of Claim 1.
The MMA-iOA-MMA block copolymers are used for adhesive which anticipates Claim 3.
Additionally, Everaerts teaches in ¶[0081] the B block monomers include 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can at once envisage the iOA B block of the MMA-iOA-MMA being 2-EHA yielding a MMA-2-EHA-MMA block copolymer with 5,000 weight average molecular weight terminal A blocks and 140,000 weight average molecular weight B block to yield 6.6 mass % of terminal A blocks and 1.10 polydispersity of the copolymer. Similarly, the 1G can be immediately envisaged to have 2-EHA to have the same weight average Mw, terminal blocks mass % and polydispersity in the iOA block copolymer 1G of Table 2.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Everaerts (U.S. 20040097658).
Everaerts teaches adhesives based on ABA block copolymers. Table 15 ¶[0154] teaches a MMA-EHA-MMA block copolymer (C8) with 12,000 weight average molecular weight MMA ends (A blocks) with ethylhexyl acrylate (C8 of claimed Formula 1) B block of 120,000 weight average molecular weight.
The A blocks anticipate the MMA block (A) block of Claim 1 and 100% of this MMA block is MMA anticipating said limitation of Claim 1.
The B block anticipates the B block of Claim 1 as the ethylhexyl acrylate is a 100% (the entire block, therefore, mol or weight) of the B block with a R1 = C8 organic group.
The weight average molecular weight is reasonably suggested to be 12,000 + 120,000 + 12,000 = 144,000 g/mol. (¶[0129] teaches the molecular weights are weight average) which anticipates the range of Claim 1.
The mass % of the terminal A blocks is (12,000 + 12,000)/144000 * 100 = ~16.7 % which anticipates the range of Claim 1.
The MMA-EHA-MMA block copolymers are used for adhesive as above which anticipates Claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections of record already address the claim amendments. The rejection of Everaerts ‘658 has been modified to use Table 15 C8 example to anticipate the claims. This was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s remarks filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues Everaerts ‘881 does not teach EHA as the B block, and also does not teach the A blocks are 90 % or more of MMA. These arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues EHA is an optional monomer and therefore not anticipated. This argument is not persuasive. Everaerts ‘881 clearly teaches in ¶[0081] that 2-EHA can be used along with isooctyl acrylate (iOA). Additionally, these monomers are C8 isomers of each other. Applicant has not addressed the immediately envisaged rationale used in the anticipation rejection either. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaking arguments to Everaerts ‘881 are drawn to Everaerts ‘881 not explicitly teaching the new claim limitations. These arguments are not persuasive. There is no requirement that the prior art must teach in the language of the claims. The rejection of record makes clear these limitations or anticipated.
Applicant’s remarks to Everaerts ‘658 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766