Patent Application 15733023 - ADHESIVE PRIMER FOR FLEXOGRAPHIC PLATE MOUNTING

Title: ADHESIVE PRIMER FOR FLEXOGRAPHIC PLATE MOUNTING TAPE
Application Information

Invention Title: ADHESIVE PRIMER FOR FLEXOGRAPHIC PLATE MOUNTING TAPE
Application Number: 15733023
Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2020-04-21T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2020-04-21T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 428
National Sub-Class: 3550EN
Examiner Employee Number: 85494
Art Unit: 1788
Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 5
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text



    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 .

Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wert et al. (US 2015/0361307 A1) in view of Taya et al. (US 2015/0309383 A1).

Regarding claim(s) 5, Van Wert teaches an adhesive tape including a polyester substrate (14) having first and second pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) layers (12) and (16) on opposing sides (para 0046-0047, 0062, figure 1), and a chemical primer layer disposed between substrate (14) and at least one of the PSA layers (12) and (16) comprising ethyleneimines (PEI) (amine-functional base polymer, polyethyleneimine) (para 0046-0047, 0062, figure 1) and a crosslinking agent (crosslinked polymer) (para 0021) such as multifunctional aziridines (polyaziridine crosslinker) as given by CX-100 (para 0066).
	
Van Wert is silent to the disclosed PEI polymers being branched PEI polymers.

However, Taya instructs that branched PEI provide increased level of crosslinking (para 0052).

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ a branched PEI based on the degree of crosslinking required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.

Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wert et al. (US 2015/0361307 A1) in view of Taya et al. (US 2015/0309383 A1) and in further view of O’Leary (US 2011/0123717 A1).

Regarding claim 6, Van Wert/Taya teaches the chemical primer layer as in the rejection of current claim 5 as set forth above.

Van Wert/Taya is silent to the polyaziridine crosslinking agent is pentaerythritol tris(3-(1-aziridinyl)propionate) (PZ-33 presently disclosed).  

However, O’Leary demonstrates the interchangeability and/or equivalency of aziridine crosslinkers such as the CX-100 crosslinker disclosed in Van Wert and the presently claimed/disclosed pentaerythritol tris(3-(1-aziridinyl)propionate) crosslinker.
Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable.  See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ a branched PEI and the pentaerythritol tris(3-(1-aziridinyl)propionate) crosslinker in the primers of Van Wert/Taya based on the degree of crosslinking required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.

Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wert et al. (US 2015/0361307 A1) in view of Taya et al. (US 2015/0309383 A1).

Regarding claim(s) claim(s) 7-9, as noted above in the rejection of claim 5, Van Wert/Taya teaches the polyester substrate (14) with a chemical primer disposed thereon (adjacent and directly bound to).  Note that Van Wert discloses that said chemical primer layer is disposed on substrate (14) between substrate (14) and “at least one” of the PSA layers (12) and (14), which provides for the presently claimed two-layer construction of substrate (14)/primer layer.

Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wert et al. (US 2015/0361307 A1) in view of Taya et al. (US 2015/0309383 A1).

Regarding claims 10 and 12-13, as noted above in the rejections of claim 5 and claim 7, Van Wert/Taya teaches the presently two-layer construction and at least one of the first and second PSA layers (12) and (16) disposed on the chemical primer layer (immediately adjacent to and directly bound); and that the first and second PSA layers (12) and (16) are polymer-based prepared form a monomer mixture of 50 wt% or greater of (meth)acrylates (polyacrylate polymer) and highly polar monomers such as, inter alia, acrylic acid (acidic polar monomer units).  
The other of the at least one of the first and second PSA layers (12) and (16) teaches a second PSA layer borne on a face of the tape opposite the at least one of the first and second PSA layers (12) and (16) (current claim 13).

Regarding claims 11 and 14, Van Wert teaches that the double-sided PSA tapes are employed in flexographic printing press to bond a printing plate to a plate cylinder (para 0041-0042).

Claim(s) 21-22 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wert et al. (US 2015/0361307 A1) in view of Taya et al. (US 2015/0309383 A1).

Regarding claim(s) 21-22, 24-25 and 27, Van Wert/Taya teaches the adhesive tape as in the rejections of claim 5, claims 7-9 and claims 10-14 set forth above, and Van Wert/Taya/O’Leary teaches the adhesive tape as in the rejection of claim 6 set forth above, which are equally applicable to the current claims.  The Examiner notes that the chemical primer layer disposed between substrate (14) and at least one of the PSA layers (12) and (16) teaches that the primer layer is disposed between both of PSA layers (12) and (16).

Regarding claim 26, Van wert teaches primer layers comprising other than ethyleneimines, and that the primers are selected based upon the substrate, the adhesive layer and the conditions under which the article of the invention will be used.

In this regards, it is respectfully submitted that the PSA layer 1 is intended as a plate side adhesive (para 0182), while PSA layer 2 is intended as a cylinder side adhesive, and thus selection of differing primer layers to bond with the different PSA layers would been obvious to one skilled in the art for the reason(s) suggested by Van Wert.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the Declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 and the remarks filed 3/14/2025, with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 5 over Van Wert et al. in view of Taya et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103; claim(s) 6 over Van Wert et al. in view of Taya et al. and in further view of O’Leary under 35 U.S.C. 103; claim(s) 7-9 over Van Wert et al. in view of Taya et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103; claim(s) 10-14 over Van Wert et al. in view of Taya et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103; and claim(s) 21-22 and 24-27 over Van Wert et al. in view of Taya et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraphs 4-8 of the action mailed 11/14/2024, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

The Examiner respectfully acknowledges the statements provided by Mr. Van Wert in the noted Declaration.  However, the Examiner also respectfully reminds the Applicant that the

MPEP 2123(I) instructs that “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the 
patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are 
concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re 
Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re 
Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).

A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one
having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck  & Co. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 
975 (1989).  

Specifically, in the instant case, the cited prior art references, regardless of who authored the publications, have been employed towards demonstrating the obviousness of the presently claimed invention based on the knowledge available to one skilled in the art, and not simply the knowledge of the inventor(s) of the instant application, or the entities responsible for the work and disclosures provided by the cited prior art.  
As noted above in the disputed prior art rejections, the Van Wert ‘307 publication teaches all the limitations of presently claimed invention of at least current claim 5 and current claim 21, except that the disclosed PEI component is a branched PEI.  Given that Van Wert ‘307 does not dissuade the skilled artisan away from employing branched PEI’s towards remedying Van Wert ‘307’s silence to branched PEI’s, Taya further instructs one skilled in the art that branched PEI’s provide increased crosslinking.  Respectfully, it is the Examiner’s position that the fictionalized POSITA encompasses a broader spectrum of skilled artisans beyond those intimately involved in the Van Wet ‘307 invention.
The Examiner also respectfully submits that the
"test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily 
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the 
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in 
the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that 
"combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their 
specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).

Indeed, as noted above, inclusive within the specifics of the Taya invention, to include the specific crosslinkers, the specific use(s) of the disclosed invention (i.e., electrolytic compositions), and the additional components/properties of the compositions (e.g., salts and high-boiling point solvents), Taya instructs the skilled artisan that branched PEIs provide increased crosslinking; a motivation within the knowledge available to the skilled artisan without being encumbered with any other requirements necessary to the success of the Taya invention.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.  The Examiner notes that the following reference were found in a search for an application that is similar in scope and content to the presently claimed invention.  At this time, the Examiner makes no assertions that he references are applicable as priori art; but only offers the disclosures as an indication what the prior art offers in regards to ties/anchor/primer layers comprising PEI polymers.

US 2925174 A Stow teaches, inter alia, a primer coating and a PSA layer, which said primer coating comprises a polyfunctional polymeric amine (see, for example, column 3, lines 24-32).   WO 2007/111138 A1 to Inoue et al. teaches an anchor coat layer comprising polymer(s) containing an amino group (i.e., a polyamine) such as, inter alia, polyethyleneimine (para 0045-0047).

KR 2006042224 A to Akiko et al. teaches an antistatic layer, anchor layer (i.e., a primer layer) and adhesive layer laminated in this order (claim 1), the antistatic layer comprising a polyester (page 6, beginning at line 273); the anchor layer comprises a polyethyleneimine (PEI) (claim 5); the adhesive layer is an acrylic adhesive (claim 8).  

US 9616394 B2 to Bothof et al. teaches a polyester substrate (column 7, lines 62-67) comprising a cured primer layer comprising a polyamine polymer (column 9, lines 48-62), which said polyamine is a polyvinylamine or a PEI (column 10, lines 26-33).

US 11332616 B2 to Suzuki et al. teaches an anchor coating agent comprising a PEI (abstract).

JP 2018049946 A to Nishimura teaches a support (11), undercoat layer (12), conductive layer (14) having conductive wires (13) and a PSA layer (20) (para 0016; figure 1).  Note that PSA layer (20) is in contact with portions of undercoat layer (12). Undercoat layer (12) comprises a PEI (para 0018).

See also US 5662985 to Jensen et al.; and US 20130017765 A1 to Coad et al.

THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 PM.
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 A Chevalier can be reached on 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.





/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788                                                                                                                                                                                                        4/2/2025