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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (JP 2014125511).
Regarding claim 1, Oshima et al. teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive laminate comprising a polyolefin-based resin composition layer and an adhesive layer formed of an acrylic adhesive composition (See Abstract, pages 1-2), wherein the acrylic adhesive composition comprises at least one polymer block composed of methacrylic acid ester units and acrylate ester units, wherein polymer block (i-1) is methyl methacrylate present in an amount of 5 to 50% by mass and polymer block (i-2) is 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (page 8). Oshima et al. teaches wherein the acrylic block copolymer (I) has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 30,000 to 300,000 (page 7) which overlaps the claimed range of 200,000 to 250,000. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Oshima et al. teaches wherein the acrylic adhesive composition (Z) comprises a tackifier resin (P) (pages 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Oshima et al. teaches wherein the tackifier resin (P) comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of rosin compounds, terpene compounds, and hydrocarbon resins (pages 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, Oshima et al. teaches wherein the acrylic adhesive composition (Z) comprises a styrenic thermoplastic elastomer (Q) (pages 9-10).
Regarding claim 6, given that Oshima et al. teaches laminate comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the laminate of Oshima et al. would necessarily have a change ratio of adhesive force as presently claimed, absent evidence to that contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite specific types of polymer block (b1) and (b2), molecular weight of the acrylic block copolymer (I) and the content of polymer block (b2) and deleted general formula (1) of (b1).
Applicant argues that unexpected results are achieved using the block copolymer with molecular weight and amount of polymer block (b2).
However, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the present claims. Specifically, there is no data at the lower end point of content of polymer block (b2), i.e. 4 mass%. Further, there is no comparative example to establish criticality of the upper end of the molecular weight range and the lower end of the polymer block amount (b2).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787