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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 6 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funakoshi et al (US 4,410,655, of record, ‘655 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘655 discloses a laminate comprising a substrate; and an adhesive layer laminated on at least one surface of the substrate (Example 1, C6/L63-L68, aluminum foil is a substrate), in which the adhesive layer contains two or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers each having a different average content of structural units derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid; wherein one of the copolymers includes one or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers having an average content of structural unit of unsaturated carboxylic acid being 15 wt% satisfying (a1) and (a1-2) (Example 1, Component A-1, C6/L44-L47), and another copolymer includes one or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers having an average content of structural unit of unsaturated carboxylic acid being 11 wt% satisfying (a2) (Example 1, Component B-1), and the composition also includes 3% by weight of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers having acid content higher than 20 wt% satisfying (a1-1) (see Example 1, C6/L41-L43).
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Funakoshi et al (US 4,410,655, of record, ‘655 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2, ‘655 discloses a laminate comprising a substrate; and an adhesive layer laminated on at least one surface of the substrate, in which the adhesive layer is obtained by drying a coated product of an aqueous dispersion containing water and a resin (Example 1, C6/L63-L68, aluminum foil is a substrate), and the resin contains two or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers each having a different content of a structural unit derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid with total average content of the structural units derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid included in the two or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers is within the range of 5 mass% or more and less than 18 mass% based on the total amount of structural units derived from monomers of the polymers contained in the resin (Example 1, C6/L35-L52, total acid content is 12.7 wt%); wherein one of the copolymers (Copolymer A) includes one or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers having an average content of structural unit of unsaturated carboxylic acid in a range of 12 to 20 wt% satisfying copolymer (a), (a1-1) and/or (a1-2) (Component A, C2/L20-L26), and the other one of copolymers (component B) includes one or more kinds of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers having an average content of structural units of unsaturated carboxylic acid being 5 to 12 wt% satisfying (a2) (Component B, C2/L26-L30). '655 exemplifies that the composition can have Component A with a content of structural units of unsaturated carboxylic acid being 19.2 wt% (Example 5, Component A-3), satisfying present claimed copolymer (a1-1), and also exemplifies that the composition can have Component A with content of structural units of unsaturated carboxylic acid being 15 wt% (Example 1, Component A-1), satisfying present claimed copolymer (a1-2); but does not expressly exemplify an embodiment use these two components together to render the composition as presently claimed. However, since the ‘655 exemplifies both component having different contents of structural units of unsaturated carboxylic acid as presently claimed, which have the same purpose to be used to an aqueous dispersion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to further use these two components together to render a composition having the same functions. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (See MPEP 2144.06). ‘655 also discloses the content of the Copolymer A can be in a preferred range of 30 to 70 wt% based on the total copolymers in the composition (C4/L15-L16, Example 5, Component (A-3)), satisfying instantly claimed copolymer (a1-1, having 17 to 30 mass% of carboxylic acid units) having a content range of 20 mass% or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that employing three different ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymers having different average contents of structural units derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid as presently claimed renders the composition which would provide the superior low-temperature adhesiveness and blocking resistance as demonstrated in Examples 2 and 3. The Examiner’s position is that the better low-temperature adhesiveness of the Example 2 and 3 is because these compositions have higher contents of structural units derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid (15.2 wt% and 15.7 wt%), as shown in the composition of Comparative Example 1-3 of present application, wherein the low temperature adhesiveness increases with increasing of contents of structural units derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid (See table 2 and 4 of present application). The compositions of Example 2 and 3 do not show better blocking resistant.
Regarding claim 6, the adhesive layer as claimed does not require the copolymer (a1-1) having 20 wt% or more in the composition.
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782