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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101165123 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) in view of US 2016/0333233 to Melnikova, as evidenced by EP 0531788 to Ostrowicki et al. (hereinafter Ostrowicki). For the purposes of examination, citations for Zhang and Ostrowicki are taken from machine translations of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in September 2025.
Regarding Claim 1. Zhang teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive [0014] comprising:
an acrylic copolymer that is copolymerized from one or more comonomers selected from alkyl acrylates or alkyl methacrylates [0016], i.e. a poly(meth)acrylate; and
a nitrile rubber constituting 2 – 40 weight percent of the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition [0015] – [0017]. The nitrile rubber may be THERBAN® 1707 [0029]. Ostrowicki provides evidence that THERBAN® 1707 is an acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer [0032].
Zhang does not teach a tackifier is further included in the pressure-sensitive adhesive. However, Melnikova teaches the concept of including an aromatic hydrocarbon resin as a tackifier in a pressure sensitive adhesive composition [0099] – [0100]. Zhang and Melnikova are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely pressure sensitive adhesive compositions. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an aromatic hydrocarbon resin as a tackifier in the pressure sensitive adhesive composition of Zhang. The motivation would have been that the introduction of tackifiers would provide advantages, such as increasing the bond strength of the adhesive composition.
Regarding Claim 2. Zhang teaches the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 wherein the nitrile rubber may be THERBAN® 1707, which the reference describes as having an acrylonitrile content of 34 weight percent [0029].
Regarding Claim 3. Zhang teaches the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 wherein the nitrile rubber may be THERBAN® 1707, which the reference describes as hydrogenated [0029].
Regarding Claim 4. Zhang teaches the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 wherein the nitrile rubber may be THERBAN® 1707 [0029]. Ostrowicki provides evidence that THERBAN® 1707 has a Mooney viscosity at 100°C of 70 ME [0032].
Regarding Claim 5. Zhang teaches the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 may be cut into strips 1 inch wide and 5 inches long [0040], i.e. it may be prepared in a web form.
Regarding Claim 6. Zhang teaches the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 comprises 60 to 98 weight percent of the acrylic/poly(meth)acrylate polymer [0016].
Regarding Claim 11. Zhang teaches an adhesive tape comprising the pressure sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 [0040].
Claims 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101165123 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) in view of US 2016/0333233 to Melnikova, as evidenced by EP 0531788 to Ostrowicki et al. (hereinafter Ostrowicki) – as applied to Claim 1 above - and further in view of DE 2017218264 to Lohmann et al. (hereinafter Lohmann). Citations for Lohmann are also taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in September 2025.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8. Zhang teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 but does not expressly teach it is foamed and/or comprises microballoons. However, Lohmann teaches the concept of foaming pressure sensitive adhesives by adding microballoons thereto [0076]. Zhang and Lohmann are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely pressure sensitive adhesives. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to add microballoons to the composition of Zhang to provide a foamed pressure sensitive adhesive. The motivation would have been that foaming the adhesive with microballoons will result in a reduction in the density of the adhesive [0082], which would reduce the overall weight of articles comprising the adhesive.
Regarding Claim 9. Zhang teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 but does not expressly teach passing the components thereof through a compound and extrusion apparatus via a continuous process. However, Lohmann teaches the concept of compounding a pressure-sensitive adhesive in a continuous unit which is preferably a twin-screw or planetary roller extruder [0102]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to prepare the pressure sensitive adhesive of Zhang in an extruder as taught by Lohmann. The motivation would have been that Lohmann shows that an extruder is a suitable device for the compounding of a pressure sensitive adhesive [0102].
Regarding Claim 10. Zhang teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive of Claim 1 but does not expressly teach it is further used in a method comprising bonding components of an automobile. However, Lohmann teaches the concept of preparing a tape comprising a pressure-sensitive adhesive and using this tape to bond plastic parts in automotive engineering [0097] – [0098]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the pressure sensitive adhesive of Zhang in a method of bonding automotive parts as taught by Lohmann. The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Lohmann shows that pressure sensitive adhesives are known in the art to be suitably used in methods of bonding components of automobiles [0097] – [0098].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
A) The Office agrees the amendments to Claims 2 and 4 obviate the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
B) Applicant argues that none of the applied references teach adding one of the claimed tackifiers to a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) composition. The Office agrees. However, US 2016/0333233 to Melnikova is now applied in the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 to teach this limitation.
C) Applicant additionally argues that the presently claimed PSA utilized in working examples 1 – 6 of the present application achieves surprising and unexpected improved chemical resistance and shear strength at higher temperatures.
However, the evidence provided must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) The Office respectfully submits that the comparative examples provided are not representative of the prior art. Each of the PSAs of comparative examples is characterized by their lack of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, which is required by the instant claims and closest prior art reference Zhang. There is consequently insufficient to conclude that the beneficial results observed by applicant are indeed unexpected and not achieved by the prior art.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764