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 Objections
Claims 2-18 and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-17, line 1: “The release coating composition” should read “The silicone-free release coating composition” in order to match the recitation of “A silicone-free release coating composition” in claim 1.
Claim 18, line 3: “a release coating composition of claim 1” should read “the silicone-free release coating composition of claim 1”.
Claim 20, line 5: “a release coating composition of claim 1” should read “the silicone-free release coating composition of claim 1”.
Claim 21, line 3: “a release coating composition of claim 1” should read “the silicone-free release coating composition of claim 1”.
Claim 22, line 1: “A laminate according to claim 20” should read “The laminate according to claim 20”.
Claim 22, line 2: “a release coating composition of claim 1” should read “the silicone-free release coating composition of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFadden (US 3,473,952).
With respect to claims 1, 7, 9-14, 16, and 18, McFadden discloses a polymeric release coating (Col. 1, lines 18-19) comprising microbeads in a polymer (Col. 2, lines 26-30). The amount of the beads is about 0.5-64% by weight (Col. 4, lines 51-66). The beads are glass beads (Col. 3, lines 4-5) and have a size of 10-500 microns (Col. 4, lines 28-29), which overlaps the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). The polymer includes a wetting agent (i.e., additive) (Col. 3, lines 55-60). The release coating is formed on a substrate (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 71-72) (i.e., there is a substrate having a first and second side and a release coating coated on at least one of the first and second sides). There is no disclosure of silicone, and thus the coating is a silicone-free release coating as claimed. While there may be no disclosure regarding the amount of microbeads in vol% nor the ratio of the amount of micro-beads to the amount of polymer binder on a volume/volume (v/v) basis, given the disclosed range in % by weight, it is clear the vol% of the microbeads would overlap the claimed ranges and the ratio of the amount of microbeads to the amount of polymer binder would overlap the claimed ranges, absent evidence to the contrary.
In light of the overlap between the claimed silicone-free release coating composition and that taught by McFadden, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silicone-free release coating composition that is both taught by McFadden and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, given that this claim further limits an optional embodiment, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Claims 1-3 and 5-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou-Yang (US 6,361,844 B1) in view of Park (KR 10-1924447 B1). The disclosure of Park is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claims 1-3, 7, 9-16, 18-19, and 30, Ou-Yang discloses a release article comprising a substrate having a release material thereon (i.e., a substrate having a first and second side and a release coating on at least one of the first and second sides), where the release material comprises an olefin (i.e., a first polymer) and alkyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., poly-acrylate and second polymer) (Col. 1, lines 39-42). The releasing material contains additives (Col. 4, line 38). The substrate includes paper or polymer films (Col. 5, lines 50-51). There is no required use of silicone or fluorine in the release material, and thus the coating is free of silicone and fluorine. The release articles can be printed on (i.e., the release liner is printable) (Col. 3, lines 6-8).
However, Ou-Yang does not disclose wherein the release composition includes microbeads.
Park teaches a release film having a first release layer, a based film, and a second release layer ([0011]). The release layer is made from an oligomer ([0062-0063]) where the oligomer includes acrylates ([0065]). The release layer includes beads ([0087]) where the beads include silica or acrylic (i.e., polymer bead), which are present in an amount of 1-15 wt% in order to provide a layer having sufficient elasticity and ductility ([0088]). The beads have a particle size of 10-20 µm ([0087]), which overlaps the presently claimed ranges. Therefore, the beads are microbeads as claimed.
Ou-Yang and Park are analogous inventions in the field of release layers containing additives and made from acrylates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the release layer of Ou-Yang to contain silica or acrylic (i.e., polymer bead) in an amount of 1-15 wt% as taught by Park in order to provide a release layer having sufficient elasticity and ductility (Park, [0088]).
Regarding the amount of microbeads being in the range of 1-85 vol% of the total dry volume of the release coating composition, while there may be no disclosure from Ou-Yang in view of Park regarding the amount of microbeads being in the range of 1-85 vol% of the total dry volume of the release coating composition, given the range of the amount of microbeads being 1-15 wt%, it is the examiner’s position that the amount of microbeads in vol% would necessarily overlap with the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the ratio of the amount of microbeads to the amount of polymer binder on a volume/volume (v/v) basis being in the range of 1:0.1 to 1:60, while there may be no disclosure from Ou-Yang in view of Park regarding the amount of microbeads to the amount of polymer binder on a volume/volume (v/v) basis being in the range of 1:0.1 to 1:60, given the range of the amount of microbeads being 1-15 wt%, it is the examiner’s position that the amount of microbeads to the amount of polymer binder on a volume/volume (v/v) basis would necessarily overlap with the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claims 5-6, Ou-Yang discloses the release material comprises a polymer comprising an olefin (i.e., a first polymer) and an alkyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., a second polymer) (Col. 3, lines 59-60). The olefin is present in an amount of 50-80 wt% of the total weight of the release material (Col. 3, lines 63-65). Thus, the ratio of the olefin (i.e., first polymer) to alkyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., second polymer) is 50/50 to 80/20, which overlaps the presently claimed ranges.
With respect to claim 8, given this claim further limits an optional embodiment, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
With respect to claim 17, while Ou-Yang discloses the use of an additive in the release coating, Ou-Yang does not disclose wherein the additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of deforming agents, rheology adjusting agents, dispersing agents, pH adjusting agents, antimicrobial agents, anti-static agents, cross-linkers, and combinations thereof.
Park teaches a resin layer containing aluminum hydroxide as an antimicrobial agent which improves the antimicrobial properties of the composition ([0024], [0035]).
Ou-Yang and Park are analogous inventions in the field of release films having resin layers including additives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive of the release layer of Ou-Yang to be the aluminum hydroxide antimicrobial agent as taught by Park in order to provide a release layer having improved antimicrobial properties (Park, [0035]).
With respect to claims 20-23 and 27, Ou-Yang discloses an adhesive article 40 (i.e., a laminate) having a first release layer 41, a substrate 42, a second release layer 45, and adhesive 43 (Col. 8, lines 1-5 and 16-24). The release layers 41 and 45 are made from the release material (Col. 8, lines 2-3 and 6-7), which is the same as that set forth above in paragraphs 10-16. The adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive (Col. 9, lines 29-30), where the adhesive includes hot melt adhesives, solvent-based adhesives, and thermally-activated (i.e., heat activated) adhesives (Col. 9, lines 18-23). The substrate layer 42 corresponds to the claimed facestock layer. As seen in Fig. 4 below, the substrate layer 42 (i.e., facestock) has a first and second side; the pressure sensitive adhesive 43 is disposed on the first side of the substrate layer 42 (i.e., facestock); the first release layer 41 is a release liner covering the adhesive disposed on the substrate layer 42 (i.e., facestock); and the second release layer 45 (corresponding to the release coating composition) is on the second side of the facestock. Further, as seen in Fig. 4, the substrate 42 (i.e., facestock) is a monolayer.
PNG
media_image1.png
164
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 24, Ou-Yang discloses the substrate is made from paper or a polymer in the form of a plastic (i.e., polymeric) film (Col. 5, lines 50-51).
With respect to claim 25, the plastic film (i.e., polymeric film) is made from polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene, polyvinylchloride, and polyethylene terephthalate (Col. 5, lines 50-55).
With respect to claim 26, given this claim further limits an optional embodiment, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
With respect to claim 28, Ou-Yang discloses the release value (i.e., release force) is 0-200 g/2.5 cm (Col. 9, lines 5-15), which is equivalent to 203.2 g/in and thus equivalent to 0-406.4 g/2 in, which overlaps the presently claimed range.
With respect to claim 29, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Ou-Yang in view of Park regarding the release liner being recyclable, given that Ou-Yang in view of Park discloses an otherwise identical release liner made from otherwise identical materials as that presently claimed, it is clear the release liner of Ou-Yang in view of Park would necessarily inherently be recyclable, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 31, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Ou-Yang in view of Park regarding the adhesive article (i.e., laminate) being printable, given that Ou-Yang in view of Park discloses an otherwise identical laminate made from otherwise identical layers made from otherwise identical materials as that presently claimed, it is clear the laminate of Ou-Yang in view of Park would necessarily inherently be printable, absent evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 and if rewritten to address the objection set forth in paragraph 2.1. above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter. Claim 4 contain allowable subject matter over the “closest” prior art McFadden (US 3,473,952), Ou-Yang (US 6,361,844 B1), and Park (KR 10-1924447 B1). The disclosure of Park is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
McFadden discloses a polymeric release coating (Col. 1, lines 18-19) comprising microbeads in a polymer (Col. 2, lines 26-30). The amount of the beads is about 0.5-64% by weight (Col. 4, lines 51-66). The beads are glass beads (Col. 3, lines 4-5) and have a size of 10-500 microns (Col. 4, lines 28-29), which overlaps the presently claimed range. The polymer includes a wetting agent (i.e., additive) (Col. 3, lines 55-60). The release coating is formed on a substrate (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 71-72) (i.e., there is a substrate having a first and second side and a release coating coated on at least one of the first and second sides). There is no disclosure of silicone, and thus the coating is a silicone-free release coating as claimed.
However, McFadden does not disclose where the polymeric release coating is made from a polymer binder comprising a first polymer that is polyvinyl pyrrolidone and a second polymer that is selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, poly-acrylate, sulfonated polyester, modified polyolefin, polyvinyl alcohol, and combinations thereof.
Ou-Yang discloses a release article comprising a substrate having a release material thereon (i.e., a substrate having a first and second side and a release coating on at least one of the first and second sides), where the release material comprises an olefin (i.e., a first polymer) and alkyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., poly-acrylate and second polymer) (Col. 1, lines 39-42). The releasing material contains additives (Col. 4, line 38). The substrate includes paper or polymer films (Col. 5, lines 50-51). There is no required use of silicone or fluorine in the release material, and thus the coating is free of silicone and fluorine. The release articles can be printed on (i.e., the release liner is printable) (Col. 3, lines 6-8).
However, Ou-Yang does not disclose wherein the release composition includes microbeads, nor does Ou-Yang disclose the polymer binder of the release material includes a first polymer that is polyvinyl pyrrolidone and a second polymer that is selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, poly-acrylate, sulfonated polyester, modified polyolefin, polyvinyl alcohol, and combinations thereof. Instead, Ou-Yang discloses the use of an olefin and alkyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., poly-acrylate), but is silent regarding the use of polyvinyl pyrrolidone.
Park discloses a release film having a first release layer, a based film, and a second release layer ([0011]). The release layer is made from an oligomer ([0062-0063]) where the oligomer includes acrylates ([0065]). The release layer includes beads ([0087]) where the beads include silica or acrylic (i.e., polymer bead), which are present in an amount of 1-15 wt% in order to provide a layer having sufficient elasticity and ductility ([0088]). The beads have a particle size of 10-20 µm ([0087]), which overlaps the presently claimed ranges. Therefore, the beads are microbeads as claimed.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the release layer is made from a polymer binder comprising a first polymer that is polyvinyl pyrrolidone and a second polymer that is selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, poly-acrylate, sulfonated polyester, modified polyolefin, polyvinyl alcohol, and combinations thereof.
Thus, none of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose the invention of claim 4, and therefore claim 4 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571) 272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday/Wednesday 07:30-12:30 and 20:30-22:30; Tuesday/Thursday/Friday 07:30-16:30 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
