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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
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 5 and 6 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 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the acrylic polymer is 2-ethylhexyl acrylate/ethyl acrylate/acrylic acid terpolymer. Claim 1 recites “an acrylic polymer comprising polymerized units of (a) a first monomer that is C4-C18 alkyl acrylate….optionally containing hydroxyl group”. As such, it is unclear whether the acrylic polymer recited in claim 5 is additional polymer or further refers to the acrylic polymer of claim 1. The examiner respectfully submits that if the claim limitation “2-ethylhexyl acrylate/ethyl acrylate/acrylic acid” further refers to the first monomer and the second monomer recited in claim 1, then claim 5 should be amended to provide proper antecedent basis with respect to the first monomer and the second monomer.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the terpolymer comprise, based on the total weight of the terpolymer (i) from 50% to 71 wt% of ethylhexyl acrylate….from 1 wt% to 10 wt% of acrylic acid.”. It is unclear whether the terpolymer polymer recited in claim 6 is additional polymer or further refers to the acrylic polymer of claim 1.
Further, as to claim 6 limitation "the terpolymer”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20220154051 A1) as evidenced by Kurtz (US 3642003).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) sheet including a substrate (first substrate) and a layer of PSA including an aqueous acrylic PSA composition formed on one or both surfaces of the substrate (0105). Lee further teaches that the PSA sheet is adhered to an adherend (second substrate) (0109). As such, Lee teaches an article comprising a first substrate, an adhesive layer in contact with the first substrate, and a second substrate in contact with the adhesive layer as claimed.
Further, as to claim 1, Lee teaches that the aqueous acrylic PSA composition comprises a polymerized units of n-butyl acrylate (first monomer that is C4-C17 alkyl acrylate), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (second monomer C1-C3 alkyl acrylate containing hydroxyl group), and acrylic acid (second monomer) (Example 1, 0026, 0034, 0041, 0043).
Further, as to claim 1, Lee teaches that the PSA composition includes alkaline substance to adjust the pH (0100 and 0103). Moreover, as an example of the alkaline substance, Lee teaches monovalent or divalent metal hydroxide (inorganic neutralizer) (0103 and Example 1 at 0014 disclosing NaOH).
Further, as to claim 1, Lee teaches that the acrylic PSA composition includes surfactant (0026). Additionally, Lee discloses acrylic PSA composition containing dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DOSS) (Example 1 at 0114), which is a known surfactant as evidenced by column 3, lines 3-4 of Kurtz.
As to claim 3, Lee teaches butyl acrylate (Example 1 at 0113).
As to claim 4, Lee teaches 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (Example 1 at 0113).
As to claim 7, Lee teaches NaOH (Example 1 at 0114).
As to claim 8, Lee teaches sodium polyoxyethylene alkyl ether sulfate as an example of the surfactant (0050), which is recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as fatty alcohol ether sulfate.
Based on the above, Lee anticipates the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegers et al. (US 20150284598 A1) in view of Binder et al. (US 20200255700 A1).
As to claim 1, Wiegers discloses a label for application to container (first substrate) comprising a facestock layer (second substrate), an adhesive layer, and a primer layer between the facestock and the adhesive layer (0010). Further, Wiegers discloses that the adhesive layer is formed of an adhesive composition such as acrylic emulsion polymer comprising polymerized units of alkyl acrylate ester of alcohol containing at least 4 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain such as 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (a first monomer that is C4-C18 alkyl acrylate), at least one polar monomer, and at least one copolymerizable monomer such as methyl methacrylate (second monomer that is C1-C3 alkyl acrylate) and ethyl acrylate (second monomer that is C1-C3 alkyl acrylate) (0054-0055). Wiegers further discloses that the PSA contains a blend of anionic and ionic surfactant (0057).
As to claim 1, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Wiegers is that Wiegers is silent as to disclosing at least one inorganic neutralizer.
Binder discloses PSA composition for use in label applications (0002). The PSA composition of Binder includes acrylic copolymer formed by emulsion polymerization (0011). Further, Binder discloses that the adhesive composition includes additives such as neutralizing agent and that such agent is typically used to control pH to provide stability to the formulated PSA composition (0023-0025). Further, Binder discloses that suitable neutralizing agent includes but not limited to aqueous ammonia (inorganic neutralizing agent), aqueous amines (inorganic neutralizing agent), and other aqueous inorganic salts (inorganic neutralizing agent) (0025).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any one or more additives disclosed by Binder, including the inorganic neutralizer and use it in the adhesive of Wiegers, motivated by the desire to control the pH of the adhesive to provide stability to the adhesive.
As to claim 2, Wiegers discloses a primer layer between the facestock layer and the adhesive layer (0010).
As to claims 3 and 4, Wiegers discloses that the adhesive layer is formed of an adhesive composition such as acrylic emulsion polymer comprising polymerized units of alkyl acrylate ester of alcohol containing at least 4 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain such as 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (C4-C18 alkyl acrylate including 2EHA), at least one polar monomer, and at least one copolymerizable monomer such as methyl methacrylate (C1-C3 alkyl acrylate) and ethyl acrylate (C1-C3 alkyl acrylate) (0054-0055).
As to claim 7, Binder discloses sodium hydroxide (0057).
As to claim 8, Wiegers discloses Disponil FES 77 and Disponil FES 32 as examples of the surfactants available from BASF (0057), which is identical to the fatty alcohol ether sulfate surfactants disclosed by present application (see 0037 of US Patent Application Publication 20250326955 A1 of present application). As such, Wiegers discloses claimed surfactant.
As to claim 9, as to the amount of the surfactant claimed, Wiegers discloses that the surfactant is present in the adhesive in the amount of between 4 to 7 wt% (0057). The claimed range of the surfactant of 0.1 to 5 wt% overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Wiegers such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Further, as to the amount of inorganic neutralizer claimed, Binder as previously disclosed suggests 0 to 2 wt% of neutralizer based on the total weight of the adhesive (0025). The claimed range of inorganic neutralizer of 0.05 to 5 wt% overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Binder such that prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Further, as to claim 9, the examiner submits that while Wiegers does not explicitly disclose the amount of the acrylic polymer as claimed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the adhesive composition of Wiegers as modified by Binder containing e.g. max 2 wt% of the neutralizer and 7 wt% of surfactant, balance acrylic polymer would be (100%-9%) or 91 wt%, which is within the claimed range of 80 to 99 wt%. Alternatively, Wiegers as modified by Binder as set forth previously discloses adhesive including acrylic polymer (0052 of Wiegers), surfactant (0057 of Wiegers), and neutralizer (0025 of Binder). Absent, any new and unexpected results, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at workable range of the acrylic polymer in the adhesive composition including the claimed, motivated by the desire to form the adhesive of Wiegers having suitable adhesion and cohesion.
As to claim 10, Wiggers discloses that the label is applied to plastic containers (0060 and 0068 disclosing “adhesive face and label is then contacted with the container”).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegers et al. (US 20150284598 A1) in view of Binder et al. (US 20200255700 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernard (US 5264532).
As to claim 5, limitation “acrylic polymer is 2-ethylhexyl acrylate/ethyl acrylate/acrylic acid terpolymer”, the examiner respectfully submits that this limitation is interpreted as the claimed acrylic polymer does not exclude other unnamed monomers.
As to claim 5, Wigers discloses copolymer composition formed by an emulsion process from a mixture comprising alkyl acrylate ester of an alcohol containing at least 4 carbon atoms, at least one polar monomer, and at least one copolymerizable monomer such as ethyl acrylate (0054).
Furter, as to claim 5, the examiner submits that while Wigers does not explicitly mention 2-ethylhexyla acrylate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the alkyl acrylate ester of an alcohol containing at least 4 carbon atoms disclosed by Wigers comprise 2-ethylhexyl acrylate monomer as this monomer is recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as useful in formation of acrylic polymer. Further, while Wigers does not explicitly mention acrylic acid, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that polar monomer such as acrylic acid are used in the formation of acrylic polymer-based adhesive because it enhances cohesive strength, adhesion to polar surfaces, and stabilizes particle formed during emulsion polymerization. See the disclosure of Bernard below.
Specifically, as to claim 5, the examiner submits that Bernard discloses inherently tacky acrylic polymers formed by emulsion polymerization and used as pressure sensitive adhesives (column 1, lines 15-25). The acrylic polymer of Bernard includes about 35 to about 95 wt% of at least one soft monomer such as an alkyl acrylate containing about 4 to 12 carbon atoms in the alkyl group such as 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (column 3, lines 40-55) and up to about 10 wt% of unsaturated carboxylic acid containing monomer (polar monomer) such as acrylic acid in order to enhance cohesive strength, adhesion to polar surfaces, and stabilizes particles formed during emulsion polymerization (column 4, lines 15-25).
Thus, as to claim 5, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed terpolymer from the collective disclosure of Wigers in view of Bernard, motivated by the desire to form a tacky adhesive having suitable cohesion, adhesion to polar surfaces, and stabilized particles formation.
As to claim 6, Wiggers does not explicitly disclose the wt% of ethylhexyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, and acrylic acid as claimed.
However, Binder discloses 65-80 wt% of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and 2 to 30 wt% of ethyl acrylate (0020). The claimed range of ethylhexyl acrylate of 50-71 wt% overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Binder, such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the claimed range of ethyl acrylate overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Binder such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Binder further discloses that the acrylic copolymer contains e.g. acrylic acid (0021) but does not explicitly disclose its amount. Bernard as set forth previously discloses up to about 10 wt% of unsaturated carboxylic acid containing monomer (polar monomer) such as acrylic acid in order to enhance cohesive strength, adhesion to polar surfaces, and stabilizes particles formed during emulsion polymerization (column 4, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the amounts of ethylhexyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, and acrylic acid as claimed and as rendered obvious from Binder and Bernard, motivated by the desire to form acrylic copolymer based adhesive having suitable cohesion, adhesion, and stabilized particle formation of acrylic polymer during the emulsion polymerization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. An article by T. Staicu et al. “Electrostatistically and electrosterically stabilized latices of acrylic copolymers used as pressure-sensitive adhesives” discloses emulsion copolymers based on poly (butyl acrylate-co-vinyl acetate-co-acrylic acid) and poly (2-ethylhexyl acrylate-co vinyl acetate-co acrylic acid).
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 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights