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 1-15 in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23, 2026.
Specification
The use of the terms ELEXCEL AS-110 and Aqualic CS 6S, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected 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.
As to claim 2, this claim recites “polyethylene glycol and derivatives and cross-linking products thereof”. This recitation is ambiguous in view of the specification, because it is unclear what polymers are encompassed by the recitation “derivatives and cross-linking products”.
Claim 6 recites “polyethylene glycol mono(di)methyl ether”. The recitation “mono(di)” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether or polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether. For purpose of examination, the aforementioned recitation is interpreted to include polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether or polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahiro et al. (JP201037355A; English translation attached with the Office action).
As to claim 1 recitation “highly water-absorbing polymer”, the examiner submits that at paragraph 0063 of the published application, applicant states “As used herein, the highly water-absorbing polymer refers to a polymer capable of absorbing 10 times or more water than the own weight.”.
Further, as to claims 1 and 2, Takahiro discloses an electrically peelable adhesive composition (EPAC) (abstract). The EPAC of Takahiro includes an acrylic polymer, ionic liquid, and polyethylene glycol (PEG) (abstract, claim 1). As to the claimed “highly water-absorbing polymer”, Takahiro does not explicitly mention a highly water-absorbing polymer. However, Takahiro discloses polyethylene glycol, which is identical to the claimed highly water-absorbing polymer (see claim 1 of Takahiro and claim 2 of the present application disclosing PEG). Accordingly, it is clear that Takahiro teaches claimed highly water-absorbing polymer.
As to claim 3, Takahiro discloses 3.5 parts by weight of PEG per 100 parts by weight of the acrylic polymer (see 0037), which is within the claimed range of 1-40 parts by weight. Further, Takahiro discloses 1 to 40 parts by weight of PEG per 100 parts by weight of the acrylic polymer (claim 1).
As to claim 8, Takahiro discloses claimed ionic conductivity (see abstract and claim 1).
As to claim 9, Takahiro discloses claimed cation and anion (claim 4).
As to claim 10, Takahiro discloses the claimed cation (e.g. pyridinium) and anion (e.g. BF4-) (claim 5).
As to claim 12, Takahiro discloses acrylic polymer formed of n-butyl acrylate (alkyl (meth)acrylate having an alkyl group of 4 carbon atoms), an acrylic acid (carboxyl group containing acrylic monomer), and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (a hydroxy group containing acrylic monomer) (0036 Example 1, also see 0009-0013).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takahiro et al. (JP201037355A).
Takahiro teaches claimed invention except for the properties recited in claims 13-15. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Takahiro as set forth previously discloses EPAC containing claimed acrylic polymer, ionic liquid, and highly water-absorbing polymer. Therefore, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned properties are inherently present in the EPAC of Takahiro. Alternatively, the aforementioned properties would obviously be present once the EPAC of Takahiro is provided.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et al. (JP201037355A).
As to claim 11, Takahiro discloses 1-40 parts by weight of ionic liquid per 100 parts by weight of the acrylic polymer (0005). Claimed range of ionic liquid of 5-40 parts by weight is between the range disclosed by Takahiro such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the content of the ionic liquid as claimed and as rendered obvious by Takahiro, motivated by the desire to form the EPAC of Takahiro with suitable ionic conductivity.
.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et al. (JP201037355A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizobata et al. (WO 2020050169 A1; US 20210277286 A1 is relied upon as English equivalent reference in the Office action), and as evidenced by (a) Aoki et al. (US 20240336816 A1) and (b) Product data sheet “Tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether” from Sigma Aldrich.
Takahiro discloses PEG as a migration promoter (0026). Takahiro is silent as to disclosing further migration accelerator as recited in claims 4-7.
Mizobata discloses electrically peelable adhesive composition (0001, 0026). The adhesive composition of Mizobata further includes ionic liquid (0102). Further, Mizobata discloses that the adhesive composition includes polyethylene glycol and/or tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether, for the purpose of assisting the movement of ionic liquid during voltage application (migration accelerator), and those having a number average Mw of 100 to 6,000 can be used as polyethylene glycol and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (0123).
As to claims 5 and 6, the examiner submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether disclosed by Mizobata is within the scope of an alkyl ether of polyethylene glycol including polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether. This is further evidenced by 0061 of Aoki (see “…the alkyl ether of polyethylene glycol is preferably selected from…”). Further, tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether has known molecular weight of 222.28 (see (b) Product data sheet).
As to claim 7, Mizobata discloses that the polyethylene glycol and tetraethylene glycol are contained in the range of from 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less based on 100 parts by mass of the polymer (0123). The claimed range of 5-30 parts by weight is between the range disclosed by Mizobata such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to select tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether as further migration accelerator in the EPAC of Takahiro, given that Mizobata discloses that both polyethylene glycol and tetraethylene glycol can be used as a migration acceleration in an EPAC in order to assist the movement of the ionic liquid during voltage application in order to separate the adhesive from an adherend.
.Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoki et al. (US 20240336816 A1) discloses electrically peelable adhesive composition and Aoki et al. (US 12371591 B2) discloses electrically peelable adhesive composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 February 18, 2026