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 . 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR20210078642A - see machine translation attached), and Miyabayashi (U.S PG Pub 20120225969A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung, drawn also to the art of a photocurable adhesive and method of temporarily fixing a member using the adhesive [0001-0002], discloses an adhesive comprising a polymerization initiator [0014], a hydrophilic urethane acrylate and a hydrophilic acrylate in a state in which at least one of the urethane acrylate or acrylate are in a state of an aqueous solution [0011-0013; 0004] (the adhesive is a liquid composition and can include a solvent i.e. water given that the acrylates are hydrophilic ([0004 & 0067 & 0032]). Further, Jung has disclosed the adhesive swelling when being exposed to water after polymerization and being able to be peeled off [0077]. Jung further discloses the composition being a liquid, because Jung discloses that the composition can permeate between the multiple layers [0073], and the composition will not be able to permeate unless it is flowable or liquid. Further, Jung has disclosed that a solvent can be a part of the composition [0067].
Jung, however, has not explicitly disclosed that the urethane acrylate oligomer or acrylate are in a state of an aqueous solution prior to curing/polymerization. This limitation is known from Miyabayashi, as explained below.
Miyabayashi, drawn also to the art of an acrylate adhesive (Abstract; [0087]), discloses a composition containing a urethane acrylate oligomer, a polymerizable acrylate, and a photoinitiator, in an aqueous solution [0118 & 0234], and discloses the urethane acrylate to be in a weight percentage of 0.5 to 4% [0152], the acrylate in a range of 1 to 60% by weight [0134], and the photopolymerization initiator in a weight range of 1 to 10% by weight [0159].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the composition of Jung, with the composition being an aqueous solution before polymerization, as disclosed by Miyabayashi, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a composition excellent in emulsifiability in water, as well as curability and low viscosity [0010].
Regarding claim 2, Jung has disclosed the initiator to be a photo initiator [0014 & 0082].
Regarding claim 3, the similar claimed limitations as claimed in instant claim are disclosed by Jung and Miyabayashi (see claim 1 rejection above). Jung has also disclosed the steps of preparing an adhesive, applying the adhesive to a laminate (between a first and second adherence target), and then detaching by supplying water to the adhesive [0070-0077].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR20210078642A - see machine translation attached), Miyabayashi (U.S PG Pub 20120225969A1), and Lipscomb (U.S PG Pub 20170210954A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jung as modified by Miyabayashi has disclosed weight percentages for the urethane acrylate, polymerizable acrylate, as well as the photoinitiator (see claim 1 rejection above). It is noted that the weight percentages as disclosed are not the same or similar as instantly claimed, specifically, for water and the polymerizable acrylate. However, as disclosed below by Lipscomb, it is known that the amount and types of components in an adhesive composition can be appropriately selected based on the properties or uses of the composition desired.
Lipscomb, drawn also to the art of acrylate adhesive composition (Abstract), discloses that depending on the kinds and amounts of components, the adhesive can be formulated to have a wide variety of properties for various end uses [0118]. Lipscomb then further discloses various substrates that can be used with the adhesive [0119-0122].
Thus, Lipscomb at the very least establishes that the components and their amounts are result effective variables, which have an effect on the properties of the adhesive and its end uses, particularly the substrates that the adhesive can be used with.
As such, it is obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the weight ranges of the components of the adhesive, in order to obtain the needed properties for the use of the adhesive as appropriate (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20210040358-A1, US-20170321088-A1, US-20170233617-A1, US-20140234553-A1, US-20140163130-A1 – all drawn to acrylic and/or aqueous adhesive compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights