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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 February 2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Amendments to the specification and claims 1 and 15, filed on 23 February 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claim 20 has been. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 11 remains withdrawn from consideration as described on page 3 of the Office Action mailed on 11 June 2025.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the specification, made of record on page 3, paragraphs 6-8 of the office action mailed 25 November 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 23 February 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) and (d) rejections of claims 15-16 made of record on pages 4-5, paragraphs 9-13 of the office action mailed 25 November 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 2 over Torre (U.S. Pub. 2021/0147720), made of record on page 6, paragraph 14 of the office action mailed 25 November 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 23 February 2026. In particular, Torre combines the monomer ingredients along with the HDDA crosslinker at the same time contrary to the claimed invention.
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
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reactive crosslinking groups" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “…further comprising a crosslinking system having reactive crosslinking groups that is added to the polymer dispersion…”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on or refer to claim 1 and thus incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (U.S. Pub. 2010/0151241).
Regarding claim 1, Hardy discloses an adhesive composition formed with 2-octyl (meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic acid, a crosslinker, and other components, see abstract and p. 1, [0008-0013]. The copolymer includes from 30-90 wt. % of 2-octyl(meth)acrylate (preferably 60-90 wt. %), and 0.5 to 20 wt. % of (meth)acrylic acid, see id. Additional suitable monomers are disclosed at p. 1, [0015].
Example 3 described in Table 1 on p. 6 uses 22 g of 2-octyl acrylate, 2 g of acrylic acid, and 16 g of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate as comonomers. This is 95 wt% of the combination of 2-octyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and 5 wt. % of acrylic acid. While this example is outside the scope of the claim, the broader disclosure of Hardy teaches using as little as 0.5 wt. % of (meth)acrylic acid (see p. 1, [0011]). This clearly teaches that 2-ethylhexyl acrylate is a preferred additional comonomer, and that the total of 2-octyl acrylate plus the additional comonomer can exceed 90 wt. % of the composition. Thus, it would have been obvious to have used a combination of 2-octyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and acrylic acid to form the copolymer such that the amount of acrylic acid is in the claimed range of 1-3 wt. % and the 2-octyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate combined are 97-99 wt. % as claimed.
Hardy also teaches that solution or emulsion polymerization of these monomers can be performed, see p. 6, [0067].
Hardy describes suitable crosslinkers at p. 3, [0029]. Hardy also specifies that the relative amounts of (meth)acrylic acid comonomer and crosslinking agent are chosen so that the ratio of equivalent groups of the crosslinker to that of the number of equivalent groups of the acid monomer are less than or equal to 0.1, preferably between 0.0001 and 0.05. See p. 3, [0041]. This is from 0.01 to 5 %, and is within the range of less than 7% as claimed.
Note that in the examples, Hardy first combines the monomer ingredients into the compositions 1 through 8 and heats the sealed jars for 20 hours to form polymers, see p. 6, [0067] and Table 1. Afterwards, Hardy adds the crosslinker component, see p. 7, [0068-0069]. Thus the crosslinking system is added to the polymer dispersion after the emulsion polymerization as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Hardy teaches that the amount of 2-octyl acrylate is preferably form 60-90 wt. % in the monomer mixture, see p.1, [0010]. This overlaps the claimed range of no more than 85 wt. %.
Regarding claim 3, Hardy discloses the use of (meth)acrylic acid and thus both acrylic acid and methacrylic acid monomer are disclosed. The amount of this monomer is preferably from 0.5 to 20 wt. % which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4 and 12 and 20, Hardy teaches that suitable crosslinking agents are multifunctional aziridines, isocyanate, oxazole, or epoxy compounds. See p. 3, [0029].
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 14, Hardy teaches forming the cured adhesive on a suitable backing substrate which includes paper. See p. 5, [0056] and [0058] and [0059]. Such a tape is capable of being used as a masking tape.
Regarding claim 6, Hardy teaches that the coating thickness of the acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive on the backing is preferably from 10-200 micrometers of dry thickness, see p. 5, [0061]. Assuming an adhesive density of 1 g/cm3, which is reasonable for a polymeric adhesive, this is a coating weight of from 10-200 g/m2 which overlaps the claimed range of 20-200 g/m2. Note: assuming a density of 1.5 g/cm3 for this material results in a coating weight range of from 15-300 g/m2 which also overlaps the claimed range of 20-200 g/m2.
Regarding claim 9, Hardy does not specify the adhesive strength of the tape on PVC or aluminum. However, Hardy does teach including known tack modifiers to impart or enhance the tack of a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition, see p. 4, [0047-0048], and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the adhesive art to have adjusted the tack of the adhesive within a desired range including the claimed adhesive strength range and/or rolling ball tack range.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Hardy teaches that the coating thickness of the acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive on the backing is preferably from 10-200 micrometers of dry thickness, see p. 5, [0061]. Assuming an adhesive density of 1 g/cm3, which is reasonable for a polymeric adhesive, this is a coating weight of from 10-200 g/m2 which overlaps the claimed range of 20-50 g/m2 (as in claim 15) and 30-50 g/m2 (as in claim 16). Note: assuming a density of 1.5 g/cm3 for this material results in a coating weight range of from 15-300 g/m2 which also overlaps the claimed ranges.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (U.S. Pub. 2010/0151241) in view of WO 2016/114100 A1. A machine translation of WO ‘100 was relied upon for analysis. The rejection of claim 9 is in alternative to that over Hardy alone described above.
Regarding claims 7, 17, and 18, Hardy is relied upon as described above to disclose a pressure-sensitive adhesive which includes a paper substrate. However, Hardy does not specify the use of a paper substrate with a basis weight of from 25 to 250 g/m2 as claimed.
WO ‘100 teaches a masking tape which comprises a paper substrate with an acrylic polymer on one side of the substrate. See p. 1, “Masking Tape”, fifth paragraph. The basis weight of the paper is preferably from 15 to 150 g/m2, with a thickness of 20 microns to 800 microns. See p. 1, “Masking Tape”, seventh paragraph. This overlaps the claimed ranges in each of claims 7, 17, and 18.
Hardy and WO ‘100 are analogous as they each disclose acrylic adhesives on paper substrates. Thus they are similar in structure and function. It would have been obvious to have used a paper substrate with the basis weight as disclosed in WO ‘100 as the paper substrate of Hardy to arrive at the claimed invention, as this provides a suitable paper for the tape. See discussion of WO ‘100 at p. 2, sixth full paragraph.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, WO ’100 discloses that the paper may include an impregnating agent in the amount of from 40-60 wt. % of the weight of the paper substrate, see p. 3, first paragraph. Note: the paper has a basis weight of from 15 to 150 g/m2 as described above, and thus the impregnating agent may be from 6 to 90 g/m2.
The paper substrate has a thickness of from 20 to 800 microns, preferably from 30 to 450 microns, see p. 2, seventh full paragraph.
The masking tape has an elongation at break in the transverse direction of not more than 15%, preferably not more than 12.5%. The elongation at break in the machine direction is preferably from 3 to 15%, see p. 12, third paragraph.
These properties overlap the claimed properties of impregnation agent quantity, thickness, and elongation at break in claims 8 and 19. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘100 notes that the masking tape has a peel strength to stainless steel of 1.0 N/18mm to 10.0 N/18mm, see p. 1, “Masking Tape”, eighth paragraph. This is equal to 0.56 to 5.56 N/cm. While WO ‘100 teaches the peel strength with respect to steel rather than PVC or aluminum as claimed, the overlapping peel strength value with respect to a metal is indicative of a suitably desirable peeling strength which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (U.S. Pub. 2010/0151241) in view of WO 2020/020714 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Hardy is relied upon as described above to disclose a pressure-sensitive adhesive which includes a multifunctional aziridine crosslinking agent. However, Hardy does not specify the use of a polymeric aziridine with a molecular weight of greater than 1000 g/mol.
WO ‘714 teaches multi-functional aziridines used as crosslinking agents of carboxylic acid functional polymers dissolved and/or dispersed in an aqueous medium, see abstract and p. 1, lines 3-6. The aziridines of WO ‘714 have a generic structure as shown on p. 2 which includes repeated units such that the molecular weight of the material is in the range of 600 to 5,000 Daltons (g/mol). See p. 2, lines 1-30. Such aziridines have improved genotoxicity, that is to say they have an improved safety and health and environmental profile compared to trimethyolpropane tris(2-methyl-1-aziridinepropionate), which is a common aziridine-functional crosslinking additive, see p. 1, lines 15-29 and lines 30-33. See also p. 6, lines 12-29 describing the molecular weight of the disclosed aziridines. In Example 4 at p. 67-68, the reference describes a 2-functional aziridine having thirteen ethylene glycol repeated units with a molecular weight of 1338.84 Daltons as well as a 2-functional aziridine with twelve ethylene glycol repeating units with a molecular weight of 1294.81 Daltons.
Hardy and WO ‘714 are analogous because they each disclose carboxylic acid-functional polymers which are crosslinked with multi-functional aziridine crosslinkers. It would have been obvious to have substituted the crosslinker of WO ‘714 for that of Hardy as such aziridines have an improved genotoxicity and thus result in a polymer that has improved biological compatibility. See discussion at p. 50-51 of WO ‘714 regarding genotoxicity testing. There is a likelihood of success in the proposed combination because WO ‘714 teaches the use of its aziridines as substitutes for the more commonly used trimethyolpropane tris(2-methyl-1-aziridinepropionate).
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 23 February 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims of record over Hardy (U.S. Pub. 2010/0151241) and other references have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the reference(s) as noted in the Interview Summary made of record on 23 February 2026. See p. 9-11 of the remarks.
However, upon further reading of the Hardy reference, the Examiner contends that the Hardy reference still reads on the amended claims. In particular, Hardy first mixes the monomer ingredients to form a polymer via solution or emulsion polymerization (see p. 6, [0067]) and later adds a chemical crosslinker to the polymer dispersion (see p. 7, [0068-0069]). This, along with the other limitations which are taught in Hardy as detailed in the rejection above, reads on the amended claims.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Amano (U.S. Pub. 2012/0263948) also teaches emulsion polymerization of acrylic monomers including acrylic acid to form a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition and includes a carboxy-reactive crosslinking agent. However, the amount of crosslinking agent is from 0.3 to 1.3 moles of crosslinker per 1 mole of carboxylic acid functional groups in the copolymer, which exceeds the claimed maximum of 7%.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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