DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on December 30, 2025 (“amendment”) in response to the Office action mailed on October 9, 2025 (“previous OA”) have been fully considered.
Support for the amendment to claims 1 and 13 can be found in paragraph 0071 of US Patent Application Publication 20240368434 A1 of the present application (“published application”).
In view of the amendment, the objection to the specification, the objection to claims, and the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112(d), as set forth in the previous OA are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the previous OA is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20080033095 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
In view of the amendment, a new rejection under 35 USC 103 over Jokinen et al. (US 20140220287 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20080033095 A1) is introduced.
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 8 and 9 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 claims 8 and 9, it is unclear what is meant by “0.1 to 100%” and “30 to 70%” of pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA). Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 1, wherein claim 1 recites that the PSA is in the form of at least two layers of PSA. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by the aforementioned claim recitations. Moreover, it is not clear from the specification how applicant arrives at the claimed ranges of “0.1 to 100%” and “30 to 70%”. For instance, in Example 1 applicant states “…The two layers were provided such that the multilayer adhesive comprised 30% of pressure sensitive adhesive that comprises stochiometric amount of crosslinking agent.” However, it is not clear how applicant achieves 30% value. The examiner makes similar observation for Examples 2 and 3 in the specification. As such, claims 8 and 9 are indefinite.
Applicant arguments as set forth on page 7 of the amendment are not found persuasive. The examiner respectfully submits that while it is clear from applicant’s arguments that stoichiometric amount of crosslinking agent means that the adhesive contains a crosslinking agent available for every reactive group capable of undergoing a crosslinking reaction, it is still unclear how applicant arrives at the ranges “0.1 to 100%” and “30 to 70%”. Applicant states that the multilayer adhesive according to, e.g., Example 1 may be achieved, for example, by providing a first adhesive layer with a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) comprising a stoichiometric amount of crosslinking agent and a second adhesive layer with a PSA comprising no crosslinking agent; the first adhesive layer could make up 30% of the multilayer adhesive. However, it is unclear how applicant achieves a value of 30%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jokinen et al. (US 20140220287 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20080033095 A1).
As to claims 1 and 13, Jokinen discloses a label laminate/label comprising in order a face layer 4, at least one water based adhesive layer 6, and a release liner 2 (Figure 1 and 0080). Further, the label laminate of Jokinen means pressure sensitive label laminate and self-adhesive label laminate (0067). Given that Jokinen discloses “at least one” water based adhesive layer, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the label laminate of Jokinen includes a multilayer adhesive comprising at least two layers of pressure-sensitive adhesive. Further, Jokinen discloses that the water based adhesive can comprise e.g. acrylic dispersions and/or tackifiers resin together with additives (0076).
As to claims 1 and 13, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Jokinen is that Jokinen is silent as to disclosing “at least one of the at least two layers comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive composition including…or diamino acid functionality”.
Takahashi discloses a PSA sheet which includes a PSA label (0094). Further, Takahashi discloses an aqueous emulsion PSA composition including an acrylic polymer and a crosslinking agent (abstract, 0010, and 0076). The PSA of Takahashi has solvent resistance, PSA force, cohesive strength under high temperature condition, edge peeling resistance in a well-balanced manner (0005, 0006, and 0100). Further, Takahashi discloses that such aqueous dispersion type PSA is preferable over to a solvent type PSA composition in terms of environmental sanitation (0005).
Moreover, as to claim 1, Takahashi discloses that the acrylic polymer includes ethylenic unsaturated monomer having a functional group/functional group containing monomer (reactive group capable of undergoing a crosslinking reaction) to introduce a crosslinking point to the acrylic polymer (0030 and 0040). Takahashi further discloses various ethylenically unsaturated monomers as functional group containing monomer and examples of such monomers include e.g. monomers having keto group (0034). Takahashi further discloses that as a crosslinking agent, when a hydrazine (dihydrazide) based crosslinking agent is used, it is preferred that the acrylic polymer is copolymerized with keto group containing monomer (0078). Takahashi further discloses adipic acid dihydrazide (ADH) crosslinking agent (0078), which applicant discloses as an example of suitable crosslinking agent. See 0059 of the published application.
Jokinen as set forth previously desires water based adhesive including acrylic dispersion. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PSA composition of Takahashi which renders obvious claimed PSA composition and form the at least one water based adhesive layer of Jokinen given that Jokinen desires such adhesive and the PSA of Takahashi provides solvent resistance, PSA force, cohesive strength under high temperature condition, edge peeling resistance in a well-balanced manner.
As to claim 1, Jokinen as modified by Takahashi does not explicitly disclose “wherein the interfaces of the at least two layers of the multilayer adhesive are indistinguishable”. 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). As set forth previously, Jokinen as modified by Takahashi renders obvious claimed adhesive label. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the interfaces of the at least two layers of the multilayer adhesive are inherently indistinguishable.
As to claim 4, Takahashi discloses diacetone acrylamide monomer (0034 and 0078), which meets claimed chemical species “N-(2-methyl-4-oxepentan-2-yl)prop-2-enamide” (see also 0056 of the published application which refers aforementioned chemical species as diacetone acrylamide).
As to claim 5, Takahashi discloses that the mass proportion of the acrylic polymer to the nonvolatiles (solid content) contained in the composition exceeds 50% by mass. The proportion may exceed 70% by mass. Further, Takahashi discloses that the proportion of the nonvolatiles to the aqueous pressure-sensitive adhesive composition (that is, the solid content of the composition) may be, for example, within the range of about 30 to 80% by mass (typically, about 40 to 70% by mass) (0075).
As to claim 6, Jokinen as modified by Takahashi renders obvious all of the at least two PSA layer comprising the PSA composition.
As to claim 7, this claim recites “barrier coating layer” but does not set forth any specific structure and/or composition of the barrier coating layer. Jokinen discloses that the label laminate comprises other layers. Specifically, Jokinen discloses that the other layer includes a tie layer, a top coat or an over-laminate that can be applied onto the face layer for protection or to enhance the adhesion of ink and/or adhesive, or to modify the water permeability (0122).
As to claims 8 and 9, Jokinen as modified by Takahashi does not explicitly disclose these claims. 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). As set forth previously, Jokinen as modified by Takahashi renders obvious claimed adhesive label. Further, Takahashi as set forth previously discloses identical crosslinking agent as claimed in the PSA layers. Moreover, as set forth previously, it is not clear how applicant arrives at the claimed invention. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive label of Takahashi inherently has the claimed features recited in claims 8 and 9.
As to claims 10-11, Jokinen as modified by Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the properties of tack and peel adhesion as claimed. However, given that Jokinen as modified by Takahashi renders obvious claimed adhesive label, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the adhesive label of Jokinen as modified by Takahashi inherently has the aforementioned properties as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
As to claim 12, Jokinen discloses label. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to attach the label of Jokinen to a desired surface of an article via the multilayer adhesive of Jokinen, motivated by the desire to use the label to an article and provide information about the article. Additionally, Takahashi also discloses that the PSA sheet (label) is adhered to e.g. a curved surface (0100) such as for interior furnishing in vehicles (surface of an item) (0158). As such, Jokinen alone or in view of Takahashi renders obvious claimed labelled item.
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 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 January 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights