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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in paragraph 5 of the action mailed 3/11/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the non-statutory, double patenting rejection of claims 13-15 over claims 13-14 of copending application number 18/450306 as set forth in paragraph 14 of the action mailed 3/11/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 13-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 15 over Raeymackers et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as set forth in paragraph 8 of the action mailed 3/11/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 13 and 15 has been withdrawn.
Rejections
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13-16 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.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what is intended via the recitation of “a rate increase” of a coat weight. The Examiner equates a “rate” as dependent on another parameter (e.g., time change). For example, a coat weight increases with the passage of time so that an adhesive is coated at a specific weight at one time, and the adhesive is coated at a higher specific weight at a later time. Thus, it is unclear how the relative coat weights of the first, second and third coat weights change with respect to each other. For the purposes of examination and the application of relevant prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the recited coat weights to require that the coat weight of the third layer of adhesive is greater than the second layer of adhesive, which in turn is greater than the coat weight of the first layer of adhesive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6586510 B1) in view of Xie et al. (EP 3571255 B1), and as evidenced via Marshall et al. (US 2006/0124239 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches a multilayer PSA construction comprising facestock (12) (substrate) comprising inner and outer surfaces (12a) (backside of the substrate) and (12b), and an adhesive laminate comprising at least a face side adhesive (FSA) (16) and a liner side adhesive (LSA) (18), or multiple adhesive layers (column 6, lines 32-44; Figure). Brown also teaches an embodiment wherein a primer is coated on the facestock (12) (column 6, lines 45-47).
The Examiner notes that the primer layer teaches a first layer of adhesive on the backside of substrate (i.e., inner surface (12a)); FSA layer (16) teaches a second layer of adhesive deposited over the first layer of adhesive; and LSA layer (18) teaches a third layer of adhesive deposited over the second layer of adhesive. The invention of Brown is directed to a label (column 1, lines 11-13).
While Brown does not specifically disclose that the coat weight of the FSA layer (16) (i.e., the presently claimed second layer of adhesive) is greater than the coat weight of the primer layer (i.e., the first layer of adhesive), and that the coat weight of the LSA layer (16) (i.e., the presently claimed third layer of adhesive) is greater than the coat weight of the FSA layer, the Examiner first notes the equivalency of the thickness and coat weight of an adhesive layer as evidenced via Marshall (see, for example, para 0033 therein) See also paragraphs 0020-0022 of the previously cited Raeymackers disclosure, wherein it is noted that layer thickness is often expressed as g/m2 (i.e. coat weight). Second, the Applicant is respectfully reminded that,
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product
does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process
claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable
even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d
695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, for the purposes of applying prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the recited coat weights to require that the coat weight of the third layer of adhesive is greater than the second layer of adhesive, which in turn is greater than the coat weight of the first layer of adhesive (see also the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above). Thus, the Examiner respectfully notes that the recitation of the “rate of increase in coat weight” does not provide any other distinguishing limitations to the presently claimed invention other than relative coat weights of the claimed adhesive layers as noted in the interpretation of the product invention recited therein.
Continuing, Brown recognizes that the coat weight of an adhesive is proportional to the peel forces demonstrated therefrom (column 1, lines 50-52).
In addition, Xie teaches a label comprising, in order, a (i) topcoat, a (ii) film, a (iii) primer layer, a (iv) PSA layer and a (v) a release layer (para 0010), wherein the primer layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 10 microns (para 0033), and the PSA layer has a thickness of 10 to 50 microns (para 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the primer layer, FSA layer (16) and LSA layer (18) of Brown in increasing thickness (i.e. coat weights) as presently claimed based on the peel forces demonstrated by each respective layer and the resultant overall thickness of the multilayer PSA construction as required by the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6586510 B1) in view of Xie et al. (EP 3571255 B1).
Regarding claim 14, as noted above, Brown teaches that multilayer PSA construction comprises at least a face side adhesive (FSA) (16) and a liner side adhesive (LSA) (18), and multiple adhesive layers, or additional layers, as well as the primer layer.
Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized that the invention of Brown contemplated the employment of additional layer(s) of adhesive other than the primer, FSA and LSA layers as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 15, while Brown teaches the employment of a release liner (20) (see the figure), Brown also teaches that the PSA composition can be applied to a facestock (linerless label) (column 6, lines 15-16).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6586510 B1) in view of Xie et al. (EP 3571255 B1) and in further view of Hill et al. (US 2018/0053446 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Brown/Xie teaches the multilayer PSA label constructions as in the rejection current claims 13-15 set forth above, but is silent to said label defined by sense marks within the facestock (12) (i.e., web).
However, Brown does instruct the skilled artisan that a modern label is passed through an apparatus that converts the construction into label stock that comprises a roll of labels (column 2, lines 10-16).
In addition, Hill teaches an adhesive label and roll (title) comprising adhesive patches and sense marks (42) on the web (20) (para 0047) towards strategic placement of the patches during processing (e.g., alignment with the cutting mechanism) (para 0023-0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to employ sense marks in the multilayer PSA label constructions of Brown/Xie towards alignment of the individual labels with the processing apparatuses for generating the final label products as in the present invention,
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments and the remarks filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 13 over Brown et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1); claims 14-15 over Brown et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103; and claim 16 over Brown et al. in view of Hill et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraphs 7 and 11-12 of the action mailed 3/11/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contention that the primer layer of the reference is not an adhesive layer “within the meaning of amended claim 13” as there is nothing to disqualify said primer layer especially if it is intended to “promote adhesion” as postured by the Applicant. Indeed, there is nothing in the claim language that demotes the primer layer to a substance that does not demonstrate adhesive properties. Further, there is nothing in the applied Brown reference that suggests that the primer layer disclosed therein does not have adhesive properties simply because it has been distinguished from the other adhesive layers (16) and (18) that provide the specific class of pressure-induced adhesive properties.
In regards to the coat weight limitations presently amended, the Examiner respectfully directs the Applicant’s attention to the prior art rejections set for the above, wherein it is noted that Brown in view of Xie teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of the presently claimed invention. As noted above, and repeated here for clarity, examination of the presently claimed invention, and the application of prior art, is limited only to the resultant product. Limitations directed to the method of achieving the claimed product, i.e., the rate of increase, are not afforded patentable weight. Thus, the claimed product, which only requires that recited first, second and third layers of adhesive are successively thicker than the previous layer(s), is taught or rendered obvious by the Brown/Xie disclosures.
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 FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 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, Alicia A 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights