DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
The respectfully apologizes for the typographical error at paragraph 3 of the Restriction Requirement action mailed 9/24/2025. Species (B) should have annotated that the species was directed to the rubber-based emulsion PSA of claims 1, 3-4 and 6.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species (A), claims 1-2 and 4-5, in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed invention provides a special technical feature over the cited prior art as detailed in the disclosure and the attendant examples contained therein, which discloses enhanced permeability and targeted administration to plants. This is not found persuasive because the prior art need not disclose an intended use, or a claimed invention’s advantages, in order to teach or render obvious the limitations of claimed invention, and thus its claimed special technical feature. In the instant case, as noted in the Restriction Requirement, the cited Hayase invention teaches all the limitations of at least current claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/5/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/4/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Examiner is unable to locate an English language translation of the disclosure or abstract of the cited JP 49-99725 U reference, nor has the Applicant provided a statement as to the reference’s relevance to the instantly claimed/disclosed invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear from the claim limitations what is, and is not, being claimed given that the claim recites a monomer mixture (c) containing a copolymerizable monomer, but then later in the claim recites that the (c) copolymerizable monomer is present at 0 % by weight.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear from the claim limitations what is, and is not, being claimed given that it is unclear if the (c) monomer mixture comprises the copolymerizable monomer; or if the copolymer monomer (c) comprises the monomer mixture, and what constitutes, and what does not constitute, the recited monomer mixture.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kataoka et al. (JP 2013248182 A). The Examiner notes that citations from the ‘182 reference were taken from a machine translation, which is included in the current action.
Regarding claim 1, Kataoka teaches tapes comprising a backing (substrate) and an adhesive layer formed on at least one surface of said backing (para 0010-0011), which said adhesive layer is an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer comprising an acrylic resin (para 0034-0035) formed via emulsion polymerization (emulsion PSA) (para 0039). Kataoka also teaches that the acrylic PSA comprises antibacterial agents (para 0040), which are identical to that presently disclosed/claimed (see current claim 4, for example) for providing the presently claimed systemic agrochemical (agrochemical-containing PSA tape).
Regarding claims 2, as noted above, Kataoka teaches the acrylic emulsion PSA (para 0039; see also para 0041, 0044, 0056).
Regarding claims 4, as noted above, Kataoka teaches that the acrylic PSA comprises antibacterial agents (bactericidal agents, bactericide) (para 0040).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (JP 2013248182 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kataoka teaches that the acrylic resin comprises (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester comprising 8 to 12 carons atoms such as, inter alia, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate in an amount of 70 to 99 % by mass and a copolymerizable monomer such as, inter alia, acrylic acid in an amount of 1 to 30 % by mass (para 0036-0039), the latter of which overlaps that presently claimed.
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).
The Examiner notes that copolymerizable monomer (c) is not required by the claimed invention (i.e., present at 0 % by weight). The Examiner also notes that Kataoka also contemplates the use of crosslinking agents comprising the acrylic PSAs (para 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the acrylic resin with the acrylic acid copolymerizable monomer in the presently claimed proportions (i.e., 0.5 to 10 % by weight) based on the degree of crosslinking with the crosslinking agent as required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Conclusion
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 11/18/2025