RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 15, filed on 12 May 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 2, 4-6, 14, 18, 19, and 23-25 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1, 3, 7-13, 15-17, and 20-22 are pending.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objection to claim 18, made of record on page 4 of the office action mailed 12 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 12 May 2026, cancelling the claim.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 over EP 0,637,618 A1 made of record on page 4 of the office action mailed 12 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 12 May 2026. EP ‘618 does not specify a solventless lamination adhesive as claimed.
NEW AND REPEATED REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0,637,618 A1 in view of Nowak (U.S. Pub. 2021/0207006). Note that Nowak is based on documents filed June 2020 and earlier.
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘618 describes a biodegradable adhesive tape which includes a substrate, an adhesive layer formed on one side of the substrate, and a release agent layer formed on the other side of the substrate, see p. 3, lines 3-5. In Example 1 at p. 9, lines 48-50, the substrate includes polyvinyl alcohol as a biodegradable polymer layer (a). Note that polyvinyl alcohol is a water-soluble polymer, see p. 5, lines 6-9 of the present specification.
EP ‘618 further teaches that the adhesive tape substrate is a laminate of a biodegradable polymer layer (a) and a paper layer (b), see p. 5, lines 15-17. Paper is a cellulosic material.
EP ‘618 does not specify a lamination adhesive between the paper layer and biodegradable polymer layer.
Nowak teaches a paper reinforced tape having a continuous paper strip, a continuous paper backing layer, and an adhesive composition disposed between the paper strip and continuous paper backing layer, see abstract and p. 4, [0066]. The tape also optionally includes a continuous fiber substrate which is water-soluble or water-dispersible, see p. 5, [0092] and [0094] such a polyvinyl alcohol or other materials, see p. 5, [0098] and [0100]. A layer of adhesive composition is disposed between the continuous paper backing layer and the continuous paper strip as a lamination adhesive, and suitable adhesives are water soluble adhesives, see p. 5, [0081]. Useful adhesives include those described for the reinforcing element (see p. 4, [0077]) which include hot melt adhesives or solvent-based adhesive compositions, see p. 3, [0049] and [0052] (emphasis added). Water insoluble adhesives are disclosed at p. 3, [0052] as well as remoistenable hot melt adhesives which do not include a solvent. The adhesives described at p. 3, [0052] thus are inclusive of solvent-free lamination adhesives. See also the example hot melt adhesives described at p. 9, [0186-0190].
EP ‘618 and Nowak are analogous because they are similar in structure and function as each discloses paper-containing tapes which may employ polyvinyl alcohol and paper substrate layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a solvent-free laminating adhesive to form the laminate substrate of EP ‘618 in order to arrive at the claimed invention, as this adheres the substrates together, see p. 5, [0051] of Nowak. This allows reinforcement of the substrate.
Regarding claim 3, EP ‘618 further teaches that the adhesive tape substrate is a laminate of a biodegradable polymer layer (a) and a paper layer (b), see p. 5, lines 15-17. Paper is a cellulosic material.
Regarding claim 8, the release agent layer 3 is shown to be formed on the surface of biodegradable polymer layer 1a, see EP ‘618 FIG. 2 and description at p. 5, lines 1-3 and lines 15-17.
Regarding claim 9, the adhesive layer 2 is shown to be formed on the surface of paper layer 1b, see EP ‘618 FIG. 2 and description at p. 5, lines 15-17.
Regarding claim 11, In EP ‘618 at Example 1 at p. 9, lines 48-50, the substrate includes polyvinyl alcohol as a biodegradable polymer layer (a).
Regarding claim 12, this the limitation “is formed by hydrolysis of polyvinyl acetate” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because EP ‘618 discloses a polyvinyl alcohol substrate layer 1a as described above.
Regarding claim 16, EP ‘618 describes a biodegradable adhesive tape which includes a substrate, an adhesive layer formed on one side of the substrate, and a release agent layer formed on the other side of the substrate, see p. 3, lines 3-5. In Example 1 at p. 9, lines 48-50, the substrate includes polyvinyl alcohol as a biodegradable polymer layer (a). Note that polyvinyl alcohol is a water-soluble polymer, see p. 5, lines 6-9 of the present specification.
Regarding claims 17 and 20-22, Nowak teaches using the tape as a tear tape for packaging of containers, see p. 3, [0058-0060]. Suitable packaging can include paper substrates (reading on cellulosic material) or Tyvek™ which is a polymeric film, see p. 3, [0059]. Nowak teaches pulling on an exposed end of a tear tape which tears through the packaging enabling it to open, see id.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0,637,618 A1 and Nowak (U.S. Pub. 2021/0207006) in view of GB 2,469,441 B.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, EP ‘618 discloses a biodegradable adhesive tape which includes a substrate, an adhesive layer formed on one side of the substrate, and a release agent layer formed on the other side of the substrate, see p. 3, lines 3-5. The substrate is made of a biodegradable polymer layer, see p. 3, line 58 through p. 4, line 2. In Example 1 at p. 9, lines 48-50, the substrate includes polyvinyl alcohol as a biodegradable polymer layer (a). Note that polyvinyl alcohol is a water-soluble polymer, see p. 5, lines 6-9 of the present specification.
EP ‘618 further teaches that the adhesive tape substrate is a laminate of a biodegradable polymer layer (a) and a paper layer (b), see p. 5, lines 15-17. Paper is a cellulosic material.
Nowak is relied upon as described above to disclose a solvent-free lamination adhesive between the paper layer and biodegradable polymer layer.
EP ‘618 does not specify that the core comprises a layer of ink.
GB ‘441 describes a linerless self-adhesive label material with a water-soluble protective layer, see title and abstract and p. 6, lines 6-10. The water-soluble protective layer is a non-edible water soluble polymer, see p. 2, lines 27-29. The face material may include paper, see p. 3, lines 5-9 and p. 5, lines 15-19. The self-adhesive material may include printing ink on the face material, see p. 3, line 27 through p. 4, line 2. The water-soluble protective layer may also be printed, see p. 4, lines 25-27. See also p. 8, lines 9-16 describing a printing process to form labels.
EP ‘618 and Nowak and GB’ 441 are analogous as they each disclose self-adhesive label materials with paper facestock layers. It would have been obvious to have printed the facestock layers to provide a printed label having desired indicia.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0,637,618 A1 and Nowak (U.S. Pub. 2021/0207006) in view of Mitchell (U.S. Pub. 2014/0311001).
Regarding claim 10, EP ‘618 and Nowak are relied upon as described above but do not specify that the polyvinyl alcohol polymer film is monoaxially oriented.
Mitchell describes a wash-off pressure-sensitive label which is a multilayered base film with two layers laminated together, each layer having a different degree of orientation, see abstract. Different layers may be monoaxially or biaxially oriented, see p. 3, [0034]. This is done so that in hot water washing conditions, the asymmetrically-oriented base film will curl severely causing it to be washed off of a package and easily removed, see p. 3, [0035].
EP ‘618 and Nowak and Mitchell are analogous as they each describe adhesive labels with polymeric film substrate layers. It would have been obvious to have monoaxially oriented the polymer layer of modified EP ‘618 as disclosed in Mitchell to arrive at the claimed invention as this allows for the label to be easily removed and washed from the package in hot washing conditions as described above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0,637,618 A1 and Nowak (U.S. Pub. 2021/0207006) in view of EP 2,518,121 A1.
Regarding claim 13, EP ‘618 and Nowak are relied upon as described above but do not specify that the polyvinyl alcohol polymer film includes a plasticizer.
EP ‘121 also describes a water degradable adhesive tape which includes a layer of water degradable polymer film which is used as a packaging material, see abstract. Suitable polymer films are disclosed at p. 4, [0026-0028], with polyvinyl alcohol being the preferred such material, see p. 4-5, [0029]. The film may include usual additives or ingredients including a plasticizer which is beneficial to control the flexibility and stretchability of the film, see p. 5, [0035].
EP ‘618 and Nowak and EP ‘121 are analogous as they each describe biodegradable adhesive tapes including a polyvinyl alcohol film layer. It would have been obvious to have included a plasticizer as taught in EP ‘121 to give the polymer film desired properties such as flexibility and stretchability, which are useful for adhesive tapes. See EP ‘121 at p. 5, [0035].
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 12 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4, 5, 17, and 20-22 of record over EP ‘618 in view of Nowak (U.S. Pub. 2021/0207006) have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Nowak discloses an aqueous lamination adhesive which is not a solventless lamination adhesive as recited in the amended claims.
The Examiner is not persuaded, as Nowak also discloses hot melt adhesives which are suitable for laminating the substrate component layers. See the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above.
Applicant also argues that Nowak does not disclose a polymer film layer (emphasis supplied), see p. 6 of the remarks.
The Examiner notes that Nowak discloses continuous fibrous substrate layers formed of naturally sourced fiber materials such as polyvinyl alcohol, see p. 5, [0100]. While this is not a film, the lamination adhesive of Nowak is suitable for bonding to this material. Thus such a lamination adhesive is expected to also suitably adhere the polyvinyl film layer of EP ‘618 to its further (paper) layer.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained and expanded to incorporate additional claims as amended.
No specific arguments have been made regarding the combination of prior art used to reject the other dependent claims outstanding in the application, see p. 8 of applicant’s remarks. Accordingly, these 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are modified to incorporate the Nowak reference and maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights