DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: 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
As previously set forth: Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/9/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office has not established that it would pose an undue burden to examine the full scope. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature is known, thus a proper restriction requirement has been put forth.
The Examiner notes rejoinder of claims will be addressed if/when allowable subject matter is found.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/9/25.
Priority
As previously set forth: The claims have an effective date of the filing of the provisional application: 12/15/20
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments drawn to the acrylic copolymer not being met by Lux is persuasive. Medina, as previously set forth over claims 2-6, is used to make up for the deficiency. The action is made second nonfinal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection over Claim 7, and its dependents, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lux (US 2014/0045976) is withdrawn for reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lux (US 2014/0045976) in view of Medina (US 5049608).
Lux discloses adhesive compositions (abstract) comprising at least 2 polymers having different hydrophilicities (abstract). The compositions are used for labels [0003] and can be used to improve pressure sensitive adhesives [0006, 0012]. The different hydrophilicities are referred to as ‘the hydrophilic polymer’ and the ‘hydrophobic polymer [0015]. The hydrophilic polymer may be a polyacrylic acid [0034], in emulsion form [0033], wherein though the concentration in the emulsion is not disclosed the end concentration by dry weight of the hydrophilic polymer is 10-75 wt% of the adhesive [0037]. Herein using any concentration of emulsion, to achieve this end solids wt% is thusly prima facie obvious.
The hydrophobic polymer may also be an emulsion [0041], the hydrophobic polymers being present in an amount from 20-80% by dry weight of the adhesive film [0042], using any amount of solids in the emulsion to obtain this end solids content in the dry film is thusly also prima facie obvious.
The hydrophobic polymer may be one, or a combination, of those of [0043] including carboxylated styrene-butadiene rubbers and maleic anhydride containing polyolefins [0043]. Using both is prima facie obvious.
Lux includes elements as set forth above. Lux discloses the use of acrylic polymers for the adhesive composition but does not disclose those of the above claims.
Medina discloses pressure sensitive adhesive compositions (abstract/title) with improved low temperature adhesion (title). Said compositions have an acrylic polymer that may be a copolymer of 40-97% 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (Column 2 lines 19-21), 5-20% vinyl acetate (Column 2 lines 23-25) and up to 25% of (meth)acrylic type monomers (Column 2 lines 28-30). Run 19, Table 14, shows a terpolymer of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, vinyl acetate and methyl methacrylate, this (and the wt% discussed above) embrace claims 2-4. The additional use of acrylic acid is also embraced (in the up to 25 wt% (meth)acrylic discussed above), as required by claim 5, and, the Tg of the copolymer is -70 to -40C (Column 2 lines 15-20), as required by claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Lux the use of the above acrylic copolymer, as taught by Medina, in order to improve the low temperature adhesion of the composition.
There is no claim limitation drawn to the end solids content of the acrylic/polyolefin/styrene-butadiene monomer. Further, the maleic anhydride polyolefin may be 20-80% by solids content (embracing ii even if some of that content comprises the second styrene-butadiene polymer mentioned above). Since the composition requirements are embraced by Lux, the “humidity resistant” property of the claims must be embraced by the reference. The above solids dry weights, and the prima facie case to use any concentration of dry solids, render obvious those wt% of claims 1, 7-8, 10. Claims 2-6 are met by the composition of Medina. Claim 11 is drawn to an optional component and is thusly rejected. Tackifiers such as rosin adducts [0045] may also be used as the hydrophobic polymer. In combination with the above mentioned resins, if the overall adhesive of Lux has 60% of hydrophobic polymer, a 20:20:20% is immediately envisaged of the three polymers above, embracing claim 12 and rendering it prima facie obvious. Elements above meet claims 13-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759