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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lugli et al (WO 2018184852, cited in IDS, cited herein with identical US 20200148923)
Lugli teaches an adhesive composition obtained by reaction of 1254 g of 2-Ethyl Hexyl acrylate, 672 g of Methyl Methacrylate, 2508 g of Butyl Acrylate and 45 g of Acrylic acid in aqueous media at the presence of surfactant, initiator and 4.12 g of such transfer agent as N – dodecylmercaptane.
After the 3 hour reaction, post-polymerization is initiated by addition of 55 g 13% tert - butyl hydroperoxide solution at 66C (see Example 1 at 0066).
Thus, total amount of the monomers added is 4479 g, and the transfer agent is added at 4.12*100/4479=0.091% wt, meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Amount of peroxide added after polymerization is 55*0.13=7.15g, which constitutes 7150/90/2=39.7 meq of peroxide and 39.7/4479=0.0089 meq/g polymer.
Note that the method of calculating for effective peroxide equivalent is taken from instant Application (see printed publication at 0057).
Note that Lugli does not teach an addition a reducing agent, meeting the limitations of claim 4.
Therefore, all limitations of claim 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 17 are met.
Regarding claim 13, Lugli teaches a Glass Transition temperature within the range of −65 to −10° C (see 0031).
In reference to claim 15, Lugli teaches a tackifier (see 0005).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, Lugli teaches a coated pressure sensitive adhesive composition (see 0015) with increased adhesion to the substrate, compared to an adhesive obtained at one step (see Table 4 at page 6).
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saija et al (EP3880763, cited in IDS, cited herein with identical US 20220119684).
Saija teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive composition, comprising an aqueous polymer dispersion with said polymer comprising monomeric units from the polymerization of a monomeric composition comprising:
a) 60 to 95% by weight of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate,
b) 0.1 to 15% by weight of butyl (meth)acrylate,
c) 0.5 to 5% by weight of a vinyl aromatic monomer,
d) 0.1 to 4% by weight of at least one ethylenically unsaturated acid,
e) 0 to 20% by weight of a vinylic ester of C2-C8 carboxylic acid,
f) optionally, a monomer different from a), b), c), d) and e) as defined above,
g) at least 0.005% by weight with respect to the total weight of monomers a)+b)+c)+d)+e)+f) of at least one chain transfer agent (see claim 1), meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12.
Saija teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive composition, comprising an aqueous polymer dispersion with said polymer comprising monomeric units from the polymerization of a composition comprising 4472 g of ethylenically unsaturated monomers carrying out a post-polymerization at 84-86C with addition of 133 g of 13% tert - butyl hydroperoxide solution (see 0066).
Thus, equivalent amount of the peroxide is 133*0.13/90=96.1 meq and 96.1/4472=0.021 meq/g polymer, meeting the limitations of claim 3.
Note that Saija does not teach an addition a reducing agent, meeting the limitations of claim 4.
Therefore, all limitations of claim 1-5, 7, 11-12 17 are met.
In reference to claim 10, Saija discloses thiol as a transfer agent (see 0030).
Regarding claim 13, Saija teaches a Glass Transition temperature within the range of −65 to −10° C (see 0052).
In reference to claim 15, Saija teaches a tackifier (see 0053).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, Saija teaches a coated pressure sensitive adhesive composition with increased adhesion to the substrate, compare to an adhesive obtained at one step (see Table 3 at page 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Saija or Lugli.
Saija or Lugli fails to teach post polymerization carries out until 80% of peroxide is decomposed.
The position is taken that the claim above represents product-by-process Claim. Since Saija, Lugli 's and Application’s polymers are identical, the process of Application’s polymer making is unpatentable (see MPEP 2113). The process of claim 6 does not convey any patentable distinct features to the product.
"Even 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). See Also In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974), In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the properties from Saija’s, Lugli’s and Applicant’s composition, regardless of the difference in their production methods.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Saija or Lugli as evidences Bernard (US 5164444).
Saija and Lugli do not teach gel content.
Bernard discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive compositing, having gel content from 50 to 70 % wt of the polymer (see Abstract).
The reference evidences that the amount of insolubles (i.e. gel content) primarily depends on the ratio between initiator and monomers (see 5:30).
Since Saija, Lugli and Applicant use the same initiators, monomers and their ratio, the gel content in all three adhesive compositions is inherently in a same range.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same gel content in Saija’s, Lugli’s and Applicant’s composition, since they apply the same initiators, monomers and their ratio.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saija or Lugli as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Schoeker et al (US 20100092774).
Saija and Lugli to disclose a composition based on a polymer comprising 60% or more alkyl methacrylate.
Schoeker teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive composition, where a polymer formed from the following monomers.
a) 70% to 95% by weight of a C6 to C10 alkyl (meth)acrylate
b) 1% to 20% by weight of methyl methacrylate
c) 0.5% to 10% by weight of a vinyl aromatic monomer
d) 0.5% to 10% by weight of a hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate
e) 0.5% to 5% by weight of a monomer having at least one acid or acid anhydride group
f) 0% to 10% by weight of tert-butyl (meth)acrylate and
g) 0% to 20% by weight of further monomers, the further monomers comprising not more than 3% by weight of methyl acrylate (see claim 1).
Schoeker discloses that the PSA adheres well to the coating layer and has very good adhesion to the substrates, and has a high level of cohesion (internal strength within the adhesive layer) (see 0128).
Therefore , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a polymer with high percentage of alkyl methacrylate in Saija’s and Lugli’s compositions in order to achieve high level of cohesion between a substrate and a coating layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights