RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status
Amendments to the abstract and claims 1-3 and 5-10, filed on 02 April 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 4 and 11 have been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the specification abstract, made of record on page 3, paragraph 5 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 April 2026.
The objections to claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 made of record on page 3 paragraph 7 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 April 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112(b) rejection of claim 11, made of record on page 4, paragraph 8 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 April 2026, canceling this claim.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8 over JP 2000-280657 A made of record on page 5 paragraph 10 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 April 2026. In particular, claim 1 as amended now recites an amide wax anti-blocking agent which is not disclosed in JP ‘657.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-11 over Yeager (U.S. Pat. 6,497,933), made of record on page 6 paragraph 11 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02 April 2026. In particular, claim 1 as amended now recites an amide wax anti-blocking agent which is not disclosed in Yeager.
NEW AND REPEATED 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
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim purports to depend on a canceled claim. It is unclear which claim is intended to be further limited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has considered claim 5 to depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager (U.S. Pat. 6,497,933) in view of JP 2009-249540 A. A machine translation of JP ‘540 was relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, Yeager discloses a label construction including a release liner having first and second surfaces in which the first surface has a release coating and faces an adhesive layer, and a second surface which includes an antistatic composition and a binder. See col. 3, lines 28-32 and col. 4, lines 5-21. A base paper layer is disclosed for the liner, see col. 4, lines 5-21. This paper has a release coating on one surface and the antistatic composition on the other surface. See id. and FIG. 1, reproduced below. The antistatic composition includes a binder and an antistatic component which reads on the anti-blocking agent, see col. 3, lines 18-32. This anticipates the claimed release liner.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In FIG. 1, 12 represents a printable substrate, 20 represents a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, 22 is a release liner having first and second surfaces 24 and 26, and antistatic composition 30. See col. 3, line 56 through col. 4, line 21.
However, Yeager does not disclose or suggest using an amide wax or ethylene (bis)stearamide wax in the antistatic coating (as in claims 1 and 5) or the use of an acrylic binder (as in claim 6).
JP ‘540 teaches an adhesive composition and adhesive tapes, see p. 1, first paragraph of the translation. An anti-blocking agent is added to the acrylic adhesive to prevent blocking of solids at room temperature, see p. 2, second paragraph. A suitable antiblocking agent is ethylene bis stearamide, see p. 6, fifth paragraph. This material is used as it has compatibility with an acrylic block copolymer adhesive, see p. 6, second paragraph. The adhesive composition can be used for a label, see paragraph bridging p. 7-8 and fifth full paragraph on p. 8.
Yeager and JP ‘540 are analogous they are similar in structure and function, as each describes adhesive materials used for labels. It would have been obvious to have combined an acrylic binder and an ethylene bis stearamide antiblocking agent in a layer for the adhesive label of Yeager as described in JP ‘540 as this provides a layer that can easily be attached to an adherend surface while preventing dust from adhering to the adherend surface and to prevent the surface from being damaged, see JP ‘540 at p. 2, fourth paragraph.
Regarding claim 2, Yeager teaches using from 40-90 wt. % of the antistatic component in the antistatic composition, see col. 3, lines 18-26. This exceeds the claimed 15 wt. % amount of anti-blocking agent. See also Example 1 which uses about 75 weight parts of antistatic additive out of about 96 weight parts of dry components, which is about 78 wt. % of antistatic additive.
Regarding claim 3, Yeager teaches using from 40-90 wt. % of the antistatic component in the antistatic composition, see col. 3, lines 18-26. This overlaps the claimed range of 15-50 wt. % of antiblocking agent.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Yeager teaches applying the antistatic coating composition by flexographic roll coating or rotogravure coating methods, see col. 3, lines 50-55. FIGS. 1 and 2 of Yeager depict the disclosed release liner and adhesive sheet in which the antistatic coating is shown to cover the entire second surface 26 of the release liner. This reads on at least 50% of the second surface comprising the antistatic coating as in claim 7, and arranged in either the machine or cross machine direction as recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Yeager shows in FIG. 1 and 2 that the label laminate includes a substrate 12, pressure-sensitive adhesive 20, release liner having a paper base and a release coating in contact with the pressure-sensitive adhesive, and also having an antistatic layer 30 on the other surface of the paper base. See discussion at col. 4, lines 5-21 and FIG 1.
Regarding claim 10, Yeager teaches a substrate 12 which reads on the claimed filmic material face as well as release liner 22 having first and second surfaces 24 and 26. See FIG. 1 and description at col. 3, line 56 through col. 4, line 21. Yeager teaches providing a commercially available release liner of a coated paper with a release agent on one side, reading on the release coating and paper-based substrate as claimed. See col. 4, lines 6-21. Antistatic coating 30 is coated onto the second surface 26 of the release liner, see col. 3, lines 50-55. This includes both a binder and an antistatic agent reading on the antiblocking agent. See col. 3, lines 18-32. The layers are laminated together to form the film laminate shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 in which the adhesive layer 20 is between substrate layer 12 and release liner 22.
However, Yeager does not disclose or suggest using an amide wax or ethylene (bis)stearamide wax in the antistatic coating.
JP ‘540 teaches an adhesive composition and adhesive tapes, see p. 1, first paragraph of the translation. An anti-blocking agent is added to the acrylic adhesive to prevent blocking of solids at room temperature, see p. 2, second paragraph. A suitable antiblocking agent is ethylene bis stearamide, see p. 6, fifth paragraph. This material is used as it has compatibility with an acrylic block copolymer adhesive, see p. 6, second paragraph. The adhesive composition can be used for a label, see paragraph bridging p. 7-8 and fifth full paragraph on p. 8.
Yeager and JP ‘540 are analogous they are similar in structure and function, as each describes adhesive materials used for labels. It would have been obvious to have used ethylene bis stearamide antiblocking agent as taught in JP ‘540 as the anti-blocking agent in a layer for the adhesive label of Yeager as this provides a layer that can easily be attached to an adherend surface while preventing dust from adhering to the adherend surface and to prevent the surface from being damaged, see JP ‘540 at p. 2, fourth paragraph.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 02 April 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4-6 of record over Yeager in view of JP 2009-249540 A have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art of release liners would not look to JP ‘540 which is related to pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes which lack the release liner. Further, even if JP ‘540 was considered, the reference provides no motivation, teaching, or suggestion to use amide wax and acrylic binder in the antistatic coating of a release liner of a label laminate for reducing or eliminating the build-up of static electricity on label laminates especially during printing and converting processes which is the aim of the pending claims. Furthermore, applicant notes that JP ‘540 uses the amide wax in the adhesive layer rather than in a release liner.
However, the Examiner notes that Yeager includes an antiblocking agent in its release liner, and JP ‘540 also discloses an antiblocking agent. Either adding or substituting the amide wax of JP ‘540 in the release liner of Yeager would also serve to provide antiblocking functionality.
There is no requirement that the proposed combination of references combine the materials for the same rationale as intended by applicant. See MPEP § 2141 and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As reiterated in KSR, the basic factual inquiries stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) still apply. “It is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound (or a key component in a composition) be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound or composition will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant", In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Prior art can be either in the field of applicant's endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. MPEP § 2141(II)(A)(2).
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights