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 .
The previous prior art rejection Shafer et al (US 20180127625), Shafer et al as evidenced by EPON MSDS, Eponex MSDS and Arcol MSDS, over Shafer in view of Kim et al (US 20170283666) and Shafer in view of Kim et al (US 20170283666) maintained and therefore it is proper to make this rejection FINAL.
Double Patenting
Double Patenting rejection over US Patent 11370944 in view of Kim in withdrawn in view of Terminal Disclaimer filed on 7/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shafer et al (US 20180127625).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shafer et al as
evidenced by EPON MSDS, Eponex MSDS and Arcol MSDS.
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 3-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer as
applied to claims 1-2, 6-14 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20170283666).
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer as
applied to claims 1-2, 6-12 and 14 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Emslander et al (US
20180327638).
The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 2/06/2026 and is herein incorporated by reference
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Shafer does not specifically teach a block-copolymer.
This is incorrect. The reference explicitly disclose that the copolymer used can be represented by random or block one (see 0054).
Applicant argues that Shafer and Kim do not used for the same applications.
Examiner disagrees. Both Shafer (see 0010) and Kim (see claim 1) disclose a pressure sensitive adhesive compositions.
Examiner suggests that a relevant Declaration, showing criticality of using a block-copolymer in modified Shafer’s composition.
Note that Applicant does not present any arguments regarding Emslander et al (US 20180327638).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights