Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/951,378

PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE COMPOSITION, PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE LAYER, PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE SHEET, OPTICAL MEMBER, AND TOUCH PANEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 23, 2022
Examiner
SHAH, SAMIR
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nitto Denko Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
36%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 36% of cases
36%
Career Allow Rate
182 granted / 513 resolved
-29.5% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
572
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 513 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/25/2025 has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katami et al. (US 2015/0376477) in view of Ooga et al. (US 2015/0050432). Regarding claims 1-6, 9-20 and 25-26, Katami discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer (title), wherein the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer comprising a mixture of monomer components constituting an acrylic polymer (paragraphs 0068-0070), wherein the acrylic polymer comprises combination of 2 ethylhexyl acrylate and isostearyl acrylate, i.e. acrylic alkyl ester having a branched chain alkyl group having 10 to 24 carbon atoms, (paragraphs 0070, 0071, 0072). Katami does not disclose hydrogenated polyolefinic resin such as hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polyolefin polyol. Ooga discloses adhesive sheet (title) comprising adhesive composition wherein the adhesive comprising hydrogenated polyolefin such as hydrogenated polybutadiene and/or hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol to obtain heat resistance and to increase adhesive properties (paragraphs 0036, 0073-0075, 0096). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the heat resistance and adhesive properties are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol, the precise amounts would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amounts cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyo in the adhesive of Katami in view of Ooga to obtain the desired heat resistance and adhesive properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Regarding claims 21-22, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the PSA sheet of claims 19-20, wherein the PSA layer has a gel fraction from 65 to 99% (paragraph 0159). Regarding claims 23-24, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the PSA sheet of claim 19, wherein given that the PSA sheet of Katami in view of Ooga discloses the same composition and the same structure as claimed in present claims, it is clear that the PSA sheet of Katami in view of Ooga would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims. Regarding claims 27-28, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the PSA sheet of claims 25-26, wherein Katami discloses the thickness PSA is 12 to 350 microns (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 29-30, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the PSA sheet of claims 25-26, wherein Katami discloses an optical component comprising the PSA sheet and a base layer, i.e. substrate, wherein the substrate comprises metal wiring on its face and the PSA is laminated on the face of the substrate on the side having the metal wiring (paragraphs 0186-0188). Regarding claims 31-32, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the optical member of claims 29-30, wherein the metal wiring is metal mash or silver nanowire (paragraphs 0188, 0189). Regarding claims 33-34, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the PSA sheet of claims 25-26, wherein Katami discloses a touch panel comprising the PSA sheet and a base layer, i.e. substrate, wherein the substrate comprises metal wiring on its face and the PSA is laminated on the face of the substrate on the side having the metal wiring (paragraphs 0184, 0186-0188). Regarding claims 35-36, Katami in view of Ooga discloses the touch panel of claims 33-34, wherein the metal wiring is metal mash or silver nanowire (paragraphs 0188, 0189). Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katami et al. (US 2015/0376477) in view of Kosakai et al. (JP 2006-342287). Regarding claims 1-6, 9-20 and 25-26, Katami discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive sheet comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer (title), wherein the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer comprising a mixture of monomer components constituting an acrylic polymer (paragraphs 0068-0070), wherein the acrylic polymer comprises combination of 2 ethylhexyl acrylate and isostearyl acrylate, i.e. acrylic alkyl ester having a branched chain alkyl group having 10 to 24 carbon atoms, (paragraphs 0070, 0071, 0072). Katami does not disclose hydrogenated polyolefinic resin such as hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polyolefin polyol. Kosakai discloses adhesive composition comprising 5 to 100 parts by mass of blend of hydrogenated polybutadiene resin such as BI-2000 and hydrogenated polybutadiene derivatives resin such as GI-1000 to obtain elastic modulus and adhesion (0014-0015). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the elastic modulus and adhesion are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol, the precise amounts would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amounts cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol in the adhesive of Katami in view of Kosakai to obtain the desired elastic modulus and adhesion (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Regarding claims 21-22, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the PSA sheet of claims 19-20, wherein the PSA layer has a gel fraction from 65 to 99% (paragraph 0159). Regarding claims 23-24, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the PSA sheet of claim 19, wherein given that the PSA sheet of Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the same composition and the same structure as claimed in present claims, it is clear that the PSA sheet of Katami in view of Kosakai would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims. Regarding claims 27-28, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the PSA sheet of claims 25-26, wherein Katami discloses the thickness PSA is 12 to 350 microns (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 29-30, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the PSA sheet of claims 25-26, wherein Katami discloses an optical component comprising the PSA sheet and a base layer, i.e. substrate, wherein the substrate comprises metal wiring on its face and the PSA is laminated on the face of the substrate on the side having the metal wiring (paragraphs 0186-0188). Regarding claims 31-32, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the optical member of claims 29-30, wherein the metal wiring is metal mash or silver nanowire (paragraphs 0188, 0189). Regarding claims 33-34, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the PSA sheet of claims 25-26, wherein Katami discloses a touch panel comprising the PSA sheet and a base layer, i.e. substrate, wherein the substrate comprises metal wiring on its face and the PSA is laminated on the face of the substrate on the side having the metal wiring (paragraphs 0184, 0186-0188). Regarding claims 35-36, Katami in view of Kosakai discloses the touch panel of claims 33-34, wherein the metal wiring is metal mash or silver nanowire (paragraphs 0188, 0189). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that ooga not only fails to teach the claimed ratio range, but one of ordinary skill in the art would also not have arrived at the claimed range based on Ooga. Examiner agrees that Ooga does not specifically disclose amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol. However, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the heat resistance and adhesive properties are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol, the precise amounts would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amounts cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of hydrogenated polybutadiene and hydrogenated polybutadiene polyol in the adhesive of Katami in view of Ooga to obtain the desired heat resistance and adhesive properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Applicant argues that the technical concept of Ooga is completely different from that of the present invention. However, applicants’ are reminded that according to MPEP 2141.01 (a), a reference may be relied on as a basis for rejection of an applicants’ invention if it is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned.” A reasonably pertinent reference is further described as one which “even though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Ooga is, therefore, a reasonably pertinent reference, because it teaches adhesive sheet, which is a function especially pertinent to the invention at hand. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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. /SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600542
Multilayer Structure and Packaging Material Comprising Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589555
DIRECT APPLICATION OF THERMOSETTING COMPOSITE SURFACING FILMS TO UV-TREATED THERMOPLASTIC SURFACES AND RELATED COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583164
MULTILAYER ARTICLES AND METHODS OF MAKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577358
GAS BARRIER FILM AND METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577432
ORGANOSILICON COMPOUND, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, AND CURABLE COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
36%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+33.3%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 513 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month