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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 2-13) in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
For clarity and ease of reading, the examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend “1) an alkyl (meth)acrylate; and” to read “1) an alkyl (meth)acrylate and”
Please amend “2) an alkyl (meth)acrylate;” to read “2) an alkyl (meth)acrylate,”
Please amend “3) an optional polar monomer; and” to read “3) an optional polar monomer and”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend “weight percent alkyl (meth)acrylate)” to read “weight percent of the alkyl (meth)acrylate”
Please amend “weight percent polar monomer” to read “weight percent of the polar monomer”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend “weight percent alkyl (meth)acrylate” to read “weight percent of the alkyl (meth)acrylate”
Please amend “weight percent polar monomer” to read “weight percent of the polar monomer”
Please amend “weight percent polyether (meth)acrylamide macromer” to read “weight percent of the polyether (meth)acrylamide macromer”
Please amend “weight percent crosslinking agent” to read “weight percent of the crosslinking agent”
Regarding claim 9, is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend “weight percent first polymer” to read “weight percent of the first polymer”
Please amend “weight percent second polymer” to read “weight percent of the second polymer”
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) 2-3, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimatsu et al (US 5,317,080).
Regarding claim 2, Arimatsu teaches in Example 33 (col. 16), a composition which has adhesion strength to a substrate, and therefore is considered an adhesive composition. Arimatsu teaches that the composition has two polymers. The first polymer contains alkyl acrylates such as: methyl methacrylate and n-butyl methacrylate. Arimatsu teaches a second polymer which is a polyether acrylamide from Example 6. This second polymer is made from propylene glycol diamine and acryloyl chloride which results in a polyether(meth)acrylamide macromer which has 100% propylene oxide based on the total moles of alkylene oxide in the polyether group. It is noted that the polar monomers are optional in both polymers.
Example 33 fails to teach that the second polymer containing the polyether (meth)acrylamide contains an alkyl (meth)acrylate and a crosslinking agent.
Delving into the specification of Arimatsu, it teaches that other monomers can be incorporated into the polymer of the polyether (meth)acrylamide (col. 3, lines 40-45). These monomers include alkyl (methacrylates) such as methyl methacrylates and crosslinkers such as polyethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate (col. 3, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the alkyl(meth)acrylate and the crosslinking agent in the specification of Arimatsu to modify the Example of Arimatsu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using monomers which are appropriate for forming resins for use in adhesives (Arimatsu, col. 3, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 3, Arimatsu teaches that the second polymer can contain a polar monomer such as other (meth)acrylamide (col. 3, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 8, Arimatsu teaches that the polyether(meth)acrylamide macromer has a molecular weight of 230 (Example 6) which is outside the claimed range of 300 to 12000 Daltons. However, the other examples readily teach polyether (meth)acrylamides which have molecular weights that range from 400 to 2,000 (Examples 7 and 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyether (meth)acrylamides of Examples 7 and 8 in place of the macromer of Example 6. Given the general teaching of the formula in the Abstract of Atimatsu, and the wide range of molecular weights possible for the polyether (meth)acrylamide, it would have been an equivalent exchange within the scope of the teachings of Arimatsu. It would have been nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predicable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Arimatsu teaches an article comprising a substrate and the adhesive composition of claim 2 positioned adjacent to the substrate (Example 33).
Regarding claim 12, Arimatsu teaches that the coating is adhered on one side to a substrate (Example 33) and therefore, it can be considered a one-sided adhesive tape.
Regarding claim 13, Arimatsu teaches that the article is a coated stainless-steel plate (Example 33) and can be considered an electric device as it is an electrically conductive material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4 and 9, Arimatsu teaches that the first polymer has a molecular weight of 8800 and is present in the amount of 85 % by weight and the second polymer is present in the amount of 15% by weight (Example 33). All these values are outside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5-6, Arimatsu fails to teach the addition of any polar monomer in the first polymerizable composition and therefore also fail to teach the percentages of the recited polymerizable composition.
Regarding claim 7, Arimatsu fails to teach the amount of each of the monomers in the second polymerizable composition.
Regarding claim 10, Arimatsu teaches that the composition can be an adhesive (col. 6, lines 35-40), however fails to teach that it is a pressure sensitive adhesive.
Other Prior Art of Note
Kudo et al (JP 2015 028607, please refer to machine translation for mapping) (cited in the International Search report as an “X” reference) teaches an adhesive composition (Abstract). The adhesive composition does incorporate a polyfunctional (meth) acrylamide (page 4 and 5), however, teaches that it is generally a urethane (meth)acrylamide (page 4) and is silent to the stipulation that the polyfunctional (meth)acrylamide is a polyether (meth)acrylamide macromer having a polyether group comprising at least 50 mole percent propylene oxide. And while the examples do appear to have two polymers in them, none of them have the recited polyether (meth) acrylamide macromer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764