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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 11 as set forth in paragraph 3 of the action mailed 10/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 21 as set forth in paragraph 4 of the action mailed 10/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in paragraph 7 of the action mailed 10/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in paragraph 8 of the action mailed 10/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 21-30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in paragraph 9 of the action mailed 10/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in paragraph 10 of the action mailed 10/16/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 21-30 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2018/0037775 A1).
Regarding claim 11, 13-16, 18 and 20, Wright teaches a hot melt extruded (hot melt processed) adhesive layer coated onto a plastic web or substrate (adhesive article) (para 0066), and comprising a crosslinked PSA (crosslinked adhesive layer, crosslinked adhesive composition) comprising a crosslinkable PSA composition comprising a polymerized reaction product of components comprising at least one alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer ((meth)acrylate copolymer), at least one tackifier, and at least one initiator, with acid-functional ethylenically unsaturated monomer being optional;
wherein the polymer comprises a radiation-sensitive crosslinker (co-polymerizable photocrosslinker) and wherein the least one alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer comprises alkyl group of 1 to 24 carbon atoms such as, inter alia, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (8 carbon atoms, free from polar groups and aromatic moieties, current claim 16) (para 0033-0035). The at least one tackifier(s) comprise hydrogenated hydrocarbon tackifier resins (para 0060), and the adhesives are employed towards medical applications (para 0068, 0076). The substrate comprises, inter alia, nonwovens (current claim 13) (para 0095-0097).
The Examiner notes that, while Wright discloses acid functional and non-acid functional may comprise the polymerized reaction product of components such as polar monomers (para 0038-0042), Wright does not require them (crosslinked (meth)acrylate-based copolymer free from polar groups). Wright further teaches that the at least one radiation-sensitive crosslinker (i.e., the co-polymerizable photocrosslinker) is present in an amount of at least 0.20 to 0.50 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polymerized reaction product of components (0.05-0.50 phr, current claim 18) (0044-0045, 0052).
Wright also teaches that the at least one tackifier comprises 10 to 70 parts by weight per 100 parts by of the total monomer (para 0062). While Wright discloses the tackifier proportions relative to the total monomers, the other components of the adhesive are present at no more than 0.5 parts by weight per 100 parts by of the total monomer for a photoinitiator (para 0036) with thermal initiators optional (i.e. 0 parts by weight) (para 0037) The non-photocrosslinkable (co)polymers are also optional (i.e., 0 parts by weight) (para 0053) and the multifunctional (meth)acrylates are present in an amount of at most 0.1 parts by weight per 100 parts by of the total monomer (para 0054-0055). Therefore, the at least one tackifier is present in an amount that overlaps that presently claimed (less than 50% by weight of the adhesive composition, current claim 14, 10-40% by weight of the adhesive composition, current claim 15).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Wright moreover teaches that the crosslinkable PSA composition is processed via methods for polymerizing packages pre-adhesives as described in Hamer et al. (para 0057), which is identical to that presently disclosed for providing the presently claimed particles of thermoplastic polymer (current claim 20). See also paragraphs 0067-0069, 0076-0078 of Wright.
The Examiner respectfully notes that, while Wright does not specify that the adhesive is capable of attachment to mammalian skin for at least 10 days, given that the cited prior art teaches the presently claimed compositional elements as recited in at least current claim 11, it is reasonable to conclude that the crosslinked PSA layer of Wright would be capable of adhering/attaching to mammalian skin for the presently claimed time frame.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2018/0037775 A1) in view of Flanigan et al. (US 8323773 B2).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Wright teaches the crosslinked hot melt adhesive as in the rejection of claims 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 set forth above, but is silent to the adhesive surface of the resultant crosslinked PSA layer not in contact with the plastic web or substrate comprising a structured surface.
However, Flanigan teaches that the exposed surface of an adhesive layer that is structured will demonstrate lower peel strengths compared to a non-structured surface (column 10, lines 9-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to structure the exposed surface of the resultant crosslinked layer of Wright towards adjusting the peel strength of the adhesive based on the peel requirements of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2018/0037775 A1) in view of Shigetomi et al. (US 9650547 B2), and in light of the evidence provided by Emslander et al. (US 10774245 B2).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Wright teaches the crosslinked hot melt adhesive as in the rejection of claims 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 set forth above, but is silent to the presently claimed chain transfer agent and the proportions thereof, and to the polymerized reaction product of components further comprising at least one difunctional (meth)acrylate in the presently claimed proportions.
However, Wright discusses the inclusion of multifunctional (meth)acrylates such as di(meth)acrylates towards increasing the cohesion in an amount up to 0.1 part per 100 parts by weight of the polymerized reaction product of components (para 0054-0055).
In addition, Shigetomi continues to teach chain transfer agent(s) in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight or less based on the total weight of the monomer mixture (column 12, line 64 to column 13, line 5), which overlaps that presently claimed (0.05 to 0.50 phr). The Examiner notes that chain transfer agents are established in the art towards controlling the molecular weight of polymers as evidenced via Emslander (see column 13, lines 10-21 therein).
Shigetomi further teaches a (meth)acrylate-based polymer comprises polyfunctional monomer(s) such as, inter alia, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate in an amount of less than 3 % by weight towards a balance of cohesion and adhesion (column 11, lines 25 to 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ difunctional (meth)acrylate monomer(s) and chain transfer agent(s), and in the presently claimed proportions, towards the crosslinked PSA composition of Wright demonstrating the molecular weight and a balance of cohesion and adhesion based on the requirements of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-26, 28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2018/0037775 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 23-26, 28 and 30, Wright teaches the hot melt extruded adhesive layer coated onto the plastic web or substrate, and comprising the crosslinked PSA as in the rejection of claims 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 set forth above, which is equally applicable to the current claims.
In addition, while Wright does not specify that the adhesive is capable of attachment to mammalian skin for at least 30 days, given that the cited prior art teaches the presently claimed compositional elements as recited in at least current claim 21, it is reasonable to conclude that the crosslinked PSA layer of Wright would be capable of adhering/attaching to mammalian skin for the presently claimed time frame.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." 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, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2018/0037775 A1) in view of Flanigan et al. (US 8323773 B2).
Regarding claim(s) 22, Wright/Flanigan teaches the crosslinked hot melt adhesive as in the rejection of claim 12 set forth above, which is equally applicable to the current claim.
Claim(s) 27 and 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2018/0037775 A1) in view of Shigetomi et al. (US 9650547 B2), and in light of the evidence provided by Emslander et al. (US 10774245 B2).
Regarding claim(s) 27 and 29, Wright//Shigetomi teaches the crosslinked hot melt adhesive as in the rejection of claims 17 and 19 set forth above, which is equally applicable to the current claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-20 and claims 21-30 as set forth in the previous action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 PM.
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, Alicia A Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 3/24/2026