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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lewandowski et al (5,747,551).
Lewandowski sets forth UV-curable pressure sensitive adhesive compositions. Said compositions comprise about 0.1% to about 15% of a photoinitiator agent, about 10% to about 80% of a polyurethane resin with a pendent acrylate functionality, zero to about 70% by of an acrylate monomer, about 0.1% to about 25% by weight of a an acrylated polybutadiene component, and zero to about 50% by weight of a tackifier agent—see abstract. Said pressure sensitive adhesive can be used to obtain tapes, band-aides, and/or labels—see col. 1, lines 42-47. The acrylated polybutadiene has a molecular weight from 200 to about 30,000—see col. 3, lines 35-60.
Lewandowski sets forth methods of using the adhesive composition comprising the steps of applying said adhesive composition to a substrate surface, subjecting said adhesive composition to ultraviolet radiation, positioning an object in contact with said adhesive composition to adhere said object in position on said substrate surface—see col. 3, lines 24-29.
Lewandowski explicitly sets forth a composition comprising 29.60 parts of Purelast 169V (polyurethane acrylate oligomer); 3.52 parts Purelast 176A (polyurethane acrylate oligomer); 2.00 parts of an acrylated polybutadiene oligomer; 4.23 parts of a tackifier (Sylvalac 25N); 1.15 parts of a flow aid; 28.11 parts of isobornyl acrylate monomer; 12.62 parts phenoxyethyl acrylate monomer); 17.50 parts of Foral 105 (tackifier); 0.36 parts of diethoxyacetophenones (photoinitiator); 1.08 parts of benzophenone (photoinitiator); 1.62 parts of Irgacure 651 (photoinitiator) and 0.91 parts of Darocure 1173 (photoinitiator)—see example 1.
Said example comprises free-radically polymerizable monomers isobornyl acrylate, phenoxyethyl acrylate and polybutadiene acrylate, wherein said acrylated polybutadiene has a molecular weight from 1000 to about 70,000—see col. 4, lines 40-45. The urethane is disclosed as having a molecular weight from 2000 to 40000. Thus claims 1-3 and 12 are anticipated.
Regarding claim 4: Lewandowski does not expressly set forth the molecular weights of the polyurethanes used in the examples Purelast 169LV and 176A. The Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
In the alternative applicant has not expressly set forth the criticality of the urethane acrylate molecular weight; thus, in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results it is deemed any amount would work. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 124 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the composition is organic solvent free (no VOCs).
Regarding claim 6: Lewandowski does not expressly set forth the limitation of claim 6; however, since The Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
Regarding claim 7, said composition comprise from 10 to 80 wt. % of the urethane acrylate—see col. 3, lines 60-62. The acrylate monomers comprise from 10-55 wt. %--see col. 4, lines 15-16.
Regarding claims 8-9, the composition of example 1 comprises 3.97 wt. % of photoinitiators—see example 1.
Regarding claim 15: Darocure 1173 is a hydroxyketone photoinitiator and additionally, the benzophenone reads on claim 15.
Regarding claim 18: Lewandowski does set forth shear strength is greater than or equal to 1 MPa. However, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
Regarding claims 19-20: Lewandowski sets forth methods of using the adhesive composition comprising the steps of applying said adhesive composition to a substrate surface, subjecting said adhesive composition to ultraviolet radiation, positioning an object in contact with said adhesive composition to adhere said object in position on said substrate surface—see col. 3, lines 24-29. Said pressure sensitive adhesive can be used to obtain devices such as tapes, band-aides, and/or labels—see col. 1, lines 42-47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13-14, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights