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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on January 22, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, 19, 20, and 39 are amended; claims 2, 4, 8-13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 31-35 are cancelled; claims 25, 27, and 30 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 3, 5-7, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 36-42 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The terms “EVOH” and “PVOH” are understood in light of paragraph [0054] of the specification to refer to ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymers and polyvinyl alcohols, respectively. It is suggested to amend claim 3 to include the full names of these materials in order to improve the clarity of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 39, the limitation reciting “the release coating…has a basis weight in the range from 0.1 g/m2 to 0.460 g/m2” is considered new matter that is not adequately supported by the original specification.
On page 9 of the remarks filed January 22, 2026, the Applicant cites paragraph [0046] of the specification as support for this feature. Paragraph [0036] reads as follows: “The surface weight of the release coating of the release film of the invention is preferably ≤ 5 g/m2, more preferably ≤ 2 g/m2, and very preferably is in the range from 0.1 g/m2 to 1.5 g/m2.” The ranges disclosed in the specification therefore only disclose the upper and lower endpoints with significant digits to the tenths place, whereas the claimed range sets forth an upper endpoint with significant digits to the thousandths place. The specification therefore does not provide adequate support for the level of precision used in the upper endpoint of the claimed range for the basis weight of the release coating.
Regarding claims 20 and 38, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 39.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 14, 22, 23, 36, 40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieck et al. (US 2002/0160140, previously cited) in view of Michel et al. (US 2009/0186183, previously cited) and Bednarik et al. (US 2004/0137242, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Wieck et al. teaches a protective material (release film) comprising a backing sheet (carrier layer) with a color layer (printed image) applied to the top and/or the bottom face of the polymer backing, and an antiadhesive coating (release coating) applied to the color layer ([0010]-[0011], [0020], [0032]). The protective material is intended to enclose a single- or double-sidedly- adhesive tape, where the polymer backing may be provided with the antiadhesive coating on only one side when it is intended to be used with single-sidedly adhesive tapes ([0010], [0021]). Given that Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating may be provided on one side of the backing sheet and does not teach any additional layers disposed on the side of the backing sheet opposite the antiadhesive coating, the backing sheet is considered to correspond to a surface layer of the protective material.
Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer may be applied over the full area of the backing sheet or as a partial color layer which does not cover the entire area of the backing sheet [0015]. In particular, the backing sheet may be provided with color only at its side edges to guide an optical recognition system for indicating the shape of a part to be punched out during a kiss-cut process ([0011], [0015]). The coating of the backing sheet with color also allows indicia, pictures, or other representations to be applied, such that the protective material may serve, for example, as an advertising medium [0035]. Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating is provided on the same side of the backing sheet as the color layer ([0020], [0032]), such that the color layer is disposed at least partly between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive coating.
Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating is made of solventlessly coated silicone (polysiloxane), which is applied at from 0.5 to 3.7 g/m2 ([0024]-[0026]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 g/m2 to 1.5 g/m2, but does not expressly teach that the silicone of the antiadhesive coating is cured by UV radiation and is radically cured.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Michel et al. teaches a liner comprising a carrier layer formed of a core layer and a coextrusion layer, wherein a release coating is applied to the outer side of the coextrusion layer [0011]. Similar to Wieck et al., Michel et al. teaches that the liner is used to prevent the adhesive of a double- or single-sided adhesive tape from unintended sticking prior to use, where the liner is joined temporarily to the layer of adhesive, for example, during production, storage, or further processing such as by die cutting ([0002], [0016]). Michel et al. teaches that the release coating may be composed of silicones, wherein the silicone may be applied solventlessly and may be crosslinked by radiation, thermally, such as by free-radical reaction, or physically [0027]. In order to avoid adverse effects of the release coating on the mechanical properties of the film, solvent-free silicones with thermal or radiation-induced crosslinking are particularly preferred, especially those that are crosslinked by EB or UV radiation [0028].
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 protective material of Wieck et al. by selecting a polysiloxane cured by UV radiation which is radically cured as the material of the release coating, as taught by Michel et al., given its art-recognized suitability for use as such, and in order to avoid adverse effects on the mechanical properties of the protective material.
With respect to the material of the carrier layer, although Wieck et al. teaches that the backing sheet (carrier layer) may be made of any plastics known for use as backing sheets, wherein polyester, polystyrene, polyamide, and polyimide are listed as exemplary plastic materials ([0018]), the reference does not expressly teach that the backing sheet is formed of a polyolefin or that the backing sheet has a corona pretreated surface.
However, Michel et al. further teaches that such release liners are typically made of paper, polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene films with a silicone coating [0003]. Michel et al. teaches that siliconized polyester films are typically used for such applications but are relatively expensive and available virtually only in colorless form [0006]. Michel et al. therefore teaches that the carrier material of the release liner is based on a monoaxially oriented polypropylene film, wherein the toughness and/or rigidity of the film can be adjusted based on the parameters used to process the polypropylene film ([0010]-[0011], [0017], [0025]). Michel et al. further teaches that it is possible to use further additives that are customary for polypropylene, such as dyes, pigments, fillers, antioxidants, light-stabilizers, nucleating agents, or processing assistants, where liners possessing a colored transparency may be useful for observation and control during a die cutting operation ([0007], [0020]). The side of the film that is intended to have a release coating is preferably pretreated on the surface for the purpose of better adhesion of the release coating, wherein these pre-treatments may include chemical treatments or physical operations such as flame treatment, plasma treatment, or corona treatment [0049].
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 protective material of Wieck et al. by substituting the polyester material of the backing sheet with a polyolefin material such as polypropylene, as taught by Michel et al., given the art-recognized equivalence of polyester and polypropylene films for use as carrier layers of siliconized release liners, and given that Michel et al. teaches that colored polyester is expensive while a colored liner may be desirable for use in a die cutting operation such as that taught by Wieck et al. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a corona pretreatment on a surface of the backing sheet, as taught by Michel et al., in order to improve the adhesion between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive release coating.
With respect to the material of the printed image, Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer (printed image) may be formed using aqueous dyes or solventborne colors, and that many other color systems are also suitable, wherein the color layer may be applied by printing, such as flexographic printing, or by other suitable techniques ([0013]), but the reference does not expressly teach that the color layer comprises at least one acrylate-based ink cured by UV radiation or at least one epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation, or that the ink is a solvent-free ink.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Bednarik et al. teaches a substrate (20; carrier layer) having a radiation curable ink (printed image) applied to a top surface (30) of the substrate, wherein the printed substrate is then covered by a silicone release layer (release coating) ([0008]-[0009], Fig. 1). Bednarik et al. teaches that the ink is applied to the substrate using a print cylinder containing the desired print and design, wherein both the ink and the silicone coating are cured using UV radiation after application ([0009]-[0010]). Bednarik et al. teaches that the substrate may be made of a polymer film such as nylon, PET, or polyolefins such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, or blends thereof, and further teaches that the ink may be a cationic radiation curable ink formed of bisphenol epoxy resin (epoxy-based ink) ([0008]-[0009]). In particular, the cationic radiation curable inks have the general formulation of a cycloaliphatic resin, bisphenol epoxy resin, polyol, photoinitiator, bubble breaker, surfactant, wetting agent, and pigment ([0009]), such that the UV curable ink does not contain solvent. Bednarik et al. teaches that such cationic radiation curable inks do not exhibit ghosting when coated over by a radiation curable silicone release coating [0006].
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. by forming the color layer of a solvent-free epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation, as taught by Bednarik et al., in order to prevent the occurrence of print defects such as ghosting.
While it is acknowledged that all of the claimed physical properties are not explicitly recited by Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik, the combination of references teaches all of the claimed features/materials/layers. Therefore, the claimed physical properties, i.e., not exhibiting a “rub off” detachment phenomenon in the context of the claimed testing parameters, would be inherently achieved by a release film with all the claimed features/materials/layers. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are obtainable only with the claimed features/layers/materials. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01 and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 5 and 36, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As explained above with respect to claim 1, Wieck et al. does not expressly teach that the carrier layer is formed of a polyolefin, and Michel et al. is relied upon to address this feature with its teaching of the equivalence of polyester and polypropylene or polyethylene films for use as carrier layers of siliconized release liners, wherein polypropylene in particular is known for its ability to accept additives such as dyes, pigments, fillers, etc., that would aid in observation and control during a die cutting operation ([0003], [0006]-[0007], [0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wieck et al. further teaches that the backing sheet may be transparent or opaque, where the opacity of the backing sheet may be achieved by incorporation of pigmentary fillers ([0004]-[0005]). Therefore, the backing sheet may be colored.
Regarding claim 7, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wieck et al. further teaches that the polymer backing has a thickness of from 12 to 150 µm, preferably from 36 to 50 µm ([0019]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, while Wieck et al. does not expressly teach that the antiadhesive coating comprises a cured polysiloxane, Michel et al. teaches a liner comprising a release coating made of silicone ([0010], [0027]). Michel et al. teaches that solvent-free silicones with thermal or radiation-induced crosslinking, such as vinylpolydimethylsiloxanes, are preferred in order to avoid adverse effects of the release coating on the mechanical properties of the film [0028]. Michel et al. therefore teaches that the cured polysiloxane is preferably selected from polydialkylsiloxanes.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer (printed image) may be applied as a partial color layer which is provided along the side edges (marginal region) of the backing sheet in order to guide an optical recognition system for indicating the shape of a part to be punched out during a kiss-cut process ([0011], [0015]). Therefore, the color layer comprises a registration, control, and/or print mark disposed in a marginal region of the protective material.
Regarding claim 40, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting “wherein the carrier layer is configured for attaching to a pressure sensitive adhesive of an article” is considered functional language related to an intended of use of the carrier layer and is considered to be met when the carrier layer of the prior art product is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The backing sheet of the protective material taught by Wieck et al. may be made of conventional plastics known for use as backing sheets, such as polyester, polystyrene, polyamide, polyimide, or the like ([0018]), which are capable of attaching to pressure sensitive adhesives, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 42, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wieck et al. further teaches that the color layer (printed image) may be made multicolored ([0035]), thus indicating the presence of two or more structures printed with different inks.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieck et al. (US 2002/0160140, previously cited) in view of Michel et al. (US 2009/0186183, previously cited) and Bednarik et al. (US 2004/0137242, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dimur (EP 0592308, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 17, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that the ink cured by UV radiation comprises a fluorescent dye or a luminescent dye.
However, in the analogous art of release liners, Dimur teaches a self-adhesive label tape (1) comprising a continuous strip of a sheet of paper (2) having one side covered with adhesive material (3) [0016]. The tape also includes a continuous strip of a protective film of silicone paper (4; release film) which is applied to the adhesive face of the strip (2) ([0018], Fig. 1). The silicone paper has notches, magnetic imprints, or traces of fluorescent ink (6) along a peripheral edge thereof for easy and reliable detection so that the tape can be cut to provide individual self-adhesive labels ([0018], [0024]).
Given that Wieck et al. also teaches that protective material is used to cover the adhesive of an adhesive tape that may have parts punched out by kiss-cutting, where the color layer provides sufficient optical contrast to guide optical recognition systems during the punching process ([0002]-[0003], [0011]), 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 protective material of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik by using a fluorescent ink in the color layer, as taught by Dimur, in order to form fluorescent markings to enable reliable detection of individual parts to be punched out from the tape.
Claims 19, 37, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieck et al. (US 2002/0160140, previously cited) in view of Michel et al. (US 2009/0186183, previously cited) and Bednarik et al. (US 2004/0137242, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fürst (US 2013/0189436, previously cited).
Regarding claims 19 and 37, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Wieck et al. does not expressly teach that the release coating or carrier layer are furnished with adjuvants as claimed. Although Michel et al. teaches that additives may be included in its carrier layer, with examples including dyes, pigments, fillers, antioxidants, light-stabilizers, nucleating agents, or processing assistants ([0020]), the combination of references does not expressly teach including adjuvants in the release coating or an amount of the adjuvants included in the release coating or the carrier layer.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Fürst et al. teaches a process for producing a polymeric film with a cured polysiloxane coating, wherein the plastic foil is based on a thermoplastic polymer such as an olefin homo- or co-polymer, while the cured polysiloxane coating is based on at least one cured polysiloxane, including free-radical-crosslinked polysiloxanes (Abstract, [0027], [0038]). Fürst et al. teaches that, if necessary, it is possible to add additives to the polysiloxane coating or to at least one layer of the plastic foil, wherein the additives may be selected from the group comprising antiblocking agents, antistatic agents, antifogging agents, antimicrobial agents, dyes, color pigments, stabilizers, processing aids, flame retardants, nucleating agents, crystallization aids, lubricants, optical brighteners, flexibilizers, sealants, plasticizers, spacers, fillers, peeling additives, waxes, wetting agents, surfactants, and dispersing agents, so long as the release effect of the polysiloxane coating is not impaired by addition of the additives [0040].
Fürst et al. teaches that the polysiloxane coating and the plastic foil can comprise 0.01-30% by weight, preferably 0.1-20% by weight, of at least one of the additives based on the total weight of the respective layer [0041]. Fürst et al. therefore teaches a weight fraction of the additives which overlaps the ranges of claims 19 and 36. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik by including one or more of the claimed adjuvants in the release coating and in the carrier layer in amounts meeting the claimed ranges, as taught by Fürst et al., for the benefit of adjusting the physical, mechanical, optical, or aesthetic properties of the layers as necessary for an intended application of the release film.
Regarding claim 41, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al., Bednarik, and Fürst et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 above. Wieck et al. further teaches that the polymer backing has a thickness of from 12 to 150 µm, preferably from 36 to 50 µm ([0019]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wieck et al. further teaches that the color layer (printed image) may be applied as a partial color layer which is provided along the side edges (marginal region) of the backing sheet in order to guide an optical recognition system for indicating the shape of a part to be punched out during a kiss-cut process ([0011], [0015]). Therefore, the color layer comprises a registration, control, and/or print mark disposed in a marginal region of the protective material.
As noted above with respect to claim 1, while Wieck et al. does not expressly teach that the solventless silicone of the antiadhesive coating comprises a cured polysiloxane, Michel et al. teaches a liner comprising a release coating made of silicone ([0010], [0027]). Michel et al. teaches that solvent-free silicones with thermal or radiation-induced crosslinking, such as vinylpolydimethylsiloxanes, are preferred in order to avoid adverse effects of the release coating on the mechanical properties of the film [0028]. Michel et al. therefore teaches that the cured polysiloxane is preferably selected from polydialkylsiloxanes.
With respect to the material of the carrier layer, Wieck et al. teaches that the backing sheet may be made of any plastics known for use as backing sheets ([0018]), but the reference only specifically teaches polyester, polystyrene, polyamide, and polyimide as exemplary plastic materials and does not expressly teach that the backing sheet comprises a thermoplastic olefin homopolymer or copolymer as claimed.
However, Michel et al. further teaches that such release liners are typically made of paper, polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene films with a silicone coating [0003]. Michel et al. teaches that siliconized polyester films are typically used for such applications but are relatively expensive and available virtually only in colorless form [0006]. Michel et al. therefore taches that the carrier material of the release liner is based on a monoaxially oriented polypropylene film, wherein the toughness and/or rigidity of the film can be adjusted based on the parameters used to process the polypropylene film ([0010]-[0011], [0017], [0025]). Michel et al. further teaches that it is possible to use further additives that are customary for polypropylene, such as dyes, pigments, fillers, antioxidants, light-stabilizers, nucleating agents, or processing assistants, where liners possessing a colored transparency may be useful for observation and control during a die cutting operation ([0007], [0020]).
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al., Bednarik, and Fürst et al. by substituting the polyester material of the backing sheet taught by Wieck et al. with a polyolefin material such as polypropylene, as taught by Michel et al., given the art-recognized equivalence of polyester and polypropylene films for use as carrier layers of siliconized release liners, and given that Michel et al. teaches that colored polyester is expensive while a colored liner may be desirable for use in a die cutting operation such as that taught by Wieck et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieck et al. (US 2002/0160140, previously cited) in view of Michel et al. (US 2009/0186183, previously cited), Bednarik et al. (US 2004/0137242, previously cited), Sitzmann et al. (US 2013/0123732, cited on IDS), and Al-Ali (US 2017/0173632, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Wieck et al. teaches a protective material (release film) comprising a backing sheet (carrier layer) with a color layer (printed image) applied to the top and/or the bottom face of the polymer backing, and an antiadhesive coating (release coating) applied to the color layer ([0010]-[0011], [0020], [0032]). The protective material is intended to enclose a single- or double-sidedly- adhesive tape, where the polymer backing may be provided with the antiadhesive coating on only one side when it is intended to be used with single-sidedly adhesive tapes ([0010], [0021]).
Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer may be applied over the full area of the backing sheet or as a partial color layer which does not cover the entire area of the backing sheet [0015]. In particular, the backing sheet may be provided with color only at its side edges to guide an optical recognition system for indicating the shape of a part to be punched out during a kiss-cut process ([0011], [0015]). The coating of the backing sheet with color also allows indicia, pictures, or other representations to be applied, such that the protective material may serve, for example, as an advertising medium [0035].
Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating is made of solventlessly coated silicone (polysiloxane), which is applied at from 0.5 to 3.7 g/m2 ([0024]-[0026]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of ≤ 5 g/m2, but does not expressly teach that the silicone of the antiadhesive coating is cured by UV radiation and is radically cured.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Michel et al. teaches a liner comprising a carrier layer formed of a core layer and a coextrusion layer, wherein a release coating is applied to the outer side of the coextrusion layer [0011]. Similar to Wieck et al., Michel et al. teaches that the liner is used to prevent the adhesive of a double- or single-sided adhesive tape from unintended sticking prior to use, where the liner is joined temporarily to the layer of adhesive, for example, during production, storage, or further processing such as by die cutting ([0002], [0016]). Michel et al. teaches that the release coating may be composed of silicones, wherein the silicone may be applied solventlessly and may be crosslinked by radiation, thermally, such as by free-radical reaction, or physically [0027]. In order to avoid adverse effects of the release coating on the mechanical properties of the film, solvent-free silicones with thermal or radiation-induced crosslinking are particularly preferred, especially those that are crosslinked by EB or UV radiation [0028].
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 protective material of Wieck et al. by selecting a polysiloxane cured by UV radiation which is radically cured as the material of the release coating, as taught by Michel et al., given its art-recognized suitability for use as such, and in order to avoid adverse effects on the mechanical properties of the protective material.
With respect to the material of the carrier layer, although Wieck et al. teaches that the backing sheet (carrier layer) may be made of any plastics known for use as backing sheets, wherein polyester, polystyrene, polyamide, and polyimide are listed as exemplary plastic materials ([0018]), the reference does not expressly teach that the backing sheet is formed of a polyolefin or that the backing sheet has a corona pretreated surface.
However, Michel et al. further teaches that such release liners are typically made of paper, polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene films with a silicone coating [0003]. Michel et al. teaches that siliconized polyester films are typically used for such applications but are relatively expensive and available virtually only in colorless form [0006]. Michel et al. therefore teaches that the carrier material of the release liner is based on a monoaxially oriented polypropylene film, wherein the toughness and/or rigidity of the film can be adjusted based on the parameters used to process the polypropylene film ([0010]-[0011], [0017], [0025]). Michel et al. further teaches that it is possible to use further additives that are customary for polypropylene, such as dyes, pigments, fillers, antioxidants, light-stabilizers, nucleating agents, or processing assistants, where liners possessing a colored transparency may be useful for observation and control during a die cutting operation ([0007], [0020]). The side of the film that is intended to have a release coating is preferably pretreated on the surface for the purpose of better adhesion of the release coating, wherein these pre-treatments may include chemical treatments or physical operations such as flame treatment, plasma treatment, or corona treatment [0049].
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 protective material of Wieck et al. by substituting the polyester material of the backing sheet with a polyolefin material such as polypropylene, as taught by Michel et al., given the art-recognized equivalence of polyester and polypropylene films for use as carrier layers of siliconized release liners, and given that Michel et al. teaches that colored polyester is expensive while a colored liner may be desirable for use in a die cutting operation such as that taught by Wieck et al. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a corona pretreatment on a surface of the backing sheet, as taught by Michel et al., in order to improve the adhesion between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive release coating.
With respect to the material of the printed image, Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer (printed image) may be formed using aqueous dyes or solventborne colors, and that many other color systems are also suitable, wherein the color layer may be applied by printing, such as flexographic printing, or by other suitable techniques ([0013]), but the reference does not expressly teach that the color layer comprises at least one acrylate-based ink cured by UV radiation or at least one epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Bednarik et al. teaches a substrate (20; carrier layer) having a radiation curable ink (printed image) applied to a top surface (30) of the substrate, wherein the printed substrate is then covered by a silicone release layer (release coating) ([0008]-[0009], Fig. 1). Bednarik et al. teaches that the ink is applied to the substrate using a print cylinder containing the desired print and design, wherein both the ink and the silicone coating are cured using UV radiation after application ([0009]-[0010]). Bednarik et al. teaches that the substrate may be made of a polymer film such as nylon, PET, or polyolefins such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, or blends thereof, and further teaches that the ink may be a cationic radiation curable ink formed of bisphenol epoxy resin (epoxy-based ink) ([0008]-[0009]). Bednarik et al. teaches that such cationic radiation curable inks do not exhibit ghosting when coated over by a radiation curable silicone release coating [0006].
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. by forming the color layer of an epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation, as taught by Bednarik et al., in order to prevent the occurrence of print defects such as ghosting.
With respect to the claimed barrier layer, Wieck et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the release film includes a barrier layer which is an oxygen, water vapor, or oil barrier layer, wherein the barrier layer includes a polyimide, an EVOH, or a PVOH.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Sitzmann et al. teaches a release film having a single-side or double-side silicone coating, a substrate layer, and a backing layer and/or barrier layer ([0032]-[0035]). Similar to Wieck et al. and Michel et al., Sitzmann et al. teaches that the substrate layers may include thermoplastic polymers such as polyolefins, polyamides, polyesters, and the like [0035]. Sitzmann et al. further teaches that the barrier layer may be an oxygen-barrier layer, a water-vapor-barrier layer, or an oil-barrier layer, wherein materials suitable for producing barrier layers of the release film include polyamides, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymers (EVOH), polyvinyl alcohols (PVOH), and mixtures thereof ([0033], [0039]).
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik et al. by including an oxygen barrier layer, a water vapor barrier layer, or an oil barrier layer made of polyamide, EVOH, or PVOH, as taught by Sitzmann et al., in order to improve the barrier properties of the release film.
With respect to the arrangement of the printed image, although Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating is provided on the same side of the backing sheet as the color layer ([0020], [0032]), such that the color layer is disposed at least partly between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive coating, the reference does not specifically teach that the color layer is disposed completely between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive coating.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Al-Ali teaches a release liner (10) comprising a substrate (15; carrier layer) having several ink-printed features (printed image) printed on the first side (15a) of the substrate and a coating (20; release coating) provided over the ink, wherein an exemplary embodiment includes a logo (19a), model and manufacturer information (19b), instructions for use (19c), and an alignment aid (19d) printed in ink (17) on the first surface of the substrate ([0020]-[0021], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Suzuki et al., Al-Ali teaches that the release liner is intended to be used to cover the adhesive on the bottom surface of an article, where the release liner can be removed from the adhesive when the article is intended to be used ([0028], Fig. 3). Fig. 2 of Al-Ali illustrates the ink (17) being disposed completely between the substrate (15) and the coating (20), wherein the coating may beneficially serve to prevent the transfer of ink to the adhesive surface ([0024], [0026]).
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik by forming the printed image such that it is disposed completely between the carrier layer and the release coating, as taught by Al-Ali, for the benefit of preventing the transfer of ink to an adhesive surface onto which the release film is intended to be applied.
Claims 20, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieck et al. (US 2002/0160140, previously cited) in view of Michel et al. (US 2009/0186183, previously cited), Bednarik et al. (US 2004/0137242, previously cited), and Al-Ali (US 2017/0173632, previously cited).
Regarding claim 39, Wieck et al. teaches a protective material (release film) comprising a backing sheet (carrier layer) with a color layer (printed image) applied to the top and/or the bottom face of the polymer backing, and an antiadhesive coating (release coating) applied to the color layer ([0010]-[0011], [0020], [0032]). The protective material is intended to enclose a single- or double-sidedly- adhesive tape, where the polymer backing may be provided with the antiadhesive coating on only one side when it is intended to be used with single-sidedly adhesive tapes ([0010], [0021]).
Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer may be applied over the full area of the backing sheet or as a partial color layer which does not cover the entire area of the backing sheet [0015]. In particular, the backing sheet may be provided with color only at its side edges to guide an optical recognition system for indicating the shape of a part to be punched out during a kiss-cut process ([0011], [0015]). The coating of the backing sheet with color also allows indicia, pictures, or other representations to be applied, such that the protective material may serve, for example, as an advertising medium [0035].
Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating is made of solventlessly coated silicone (polysiloxane), which is applied at from 0.5 to 3.7 g/m2 ([0024]-[0026]). It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, and in the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are so close than one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Absent any evidence that the upper endpoint of the claimed range of 0.1 g/m2 to 0.460 g/m2 has criticality relative to the prior art disclosure of 0.5 g/m2 to 3.7 g/m2 for the basis weight of the release coating, the difference between the claimed range and the prior art is prima facie obvious.
Wieck et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the silicone of the antiadhesive coating is cured by UV radiation and is radically cured.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Michel et al. teaches a liner comprising a carrier layer formed of a core layer and a coextrusion layer, wherein a release coating is applied to the outer side of the coextrusion layer [0011]. Similar to Wieck et al., Michel et al. teaches that the liner is used to prevent the adhesive of a double- or single-sided adhesive tape from unintended sticking prior to use, where the liner is joined temporarily to the layer of adhesive, for example, during production, storage, or further processing such as by die cutting ([0002], [0016]). Michel et al. teaches that the release coating may be composed of silicones, wherein the silicone may be applied solventlessly and may be crosslinked by radiation, thermally, such as by free-radical reaction, or physically [0027]. In order to avoid adverse effects of the release coating on the mechanical properties of the film, solvent-free silicones with thermal or radiation-induced crosslinking are particularly preferred, especially those that are crosslinked by EB or UV radiation [0028].
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 protective material of Wieck et al. by selecting a polysiloxane cured by UV radiation which is radically cured as the material of the release coating, as taught by Michel et al., given its art-recognized suitability for use as such, and in order to avoid adverse effects on the mechanical properties of the protective material.
With respect to the material of the carrier layer, although Wieck et al. teaches that the backing sheet (carrier layer) may be made of any plastics known for use as backing sheets, wherein polyester, polystyrene, polyamide, and polyimide are listed as exemplary plastic materials ([0018]), the reference does not expressly teach that the backing sheet is formed of a polyolefin or that the backing sheet has a corona pretreated surface.
However, Michel et al. further teaches that such release liners are typically made of paper, polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene films with a silicone coating [0003]. Michel et al. teaches that siliconized polyester films are typically used for such applications but are relatively expensive and available virtually only in colorless form [0006]. Michel et al. therefore teaches that the carrier material of the release liner is based on a monoaxially oriented polypropylene film, wherein the toughness and/or rigidity of the film can be adjusted based on the parameters used to process the polypropylene film ([0010]-[0011], [0017], [0025]). Michel et al. further teaches that it is possible to use further additives that are customary for polypropylene, such as dyes, pigments, fillers, antioxidants, light-stabilizers, nucleating agents, or processing assistants, where liners possessing a colored transparency may be useful for observation and control during a die cutting operation ([0007], [0020]). The side of the film that is intended to have a release coating is preferably pretreated on the surface for the purpose of better adhesion of the release coating, wherein these pre-treatments may include chemical treatments or physical operations such as flame treatment, plasma treatment, or corona treatment [0049].
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 protective material of Wieck et al. by substituting the polyester material of the backing sheet with a polyolefin material such as polypropylene, as taught by Michel et al., given the art-recognized equivalence of polyester and polypropylene films for use as carrier layers of siliconized release liners, and given that Michel et al. teaches that colored polyester is expensive while a colored liner may be desirable for use in a die cutting operation such as that taught by Wieck et al. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a corona pretreatment on a surface of the backing sheet, as taught by Michel et al., in order to improve the adhesion between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive release coating.
With respect to the material of the printed image, Wieck et al. teaches that the color layer (printed image) may be formed using aqueous dyes or solventborne colors, and that many other color systems are also suitable, wherein the color layer may be applied by printing, such as flexographic printing, or by other suitable techniques ([0013]), but the reference does not expressly teach that the color layer comprises at least one acrylate-based ink cured by UV radiation or at least one epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Bednarik et al. teaches a substrate (20; carrier layer) having a radiation curable ink (printed image) applied to a top surface (30) of the substrate, wherein the printed substrate is then covered by a silicone release layer (release coating) ([0008]-[0009], Fig. 1). Bednarik et al. teaches that the ink is applied to the substrate using a print cylinder containing the desired print and design, wherein both the ink and the silicone coating are cured using UV radiation after application ([0009]-[0010]). Bednarik et al. teaches that the substrate may be made of a polymer film such as nylon, PET, or polyolefins such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, or blends thereof, and further teaches that the ink may be a cationic radiation curable ink formed of bisphenol epoxy resin (epoxy-based ink) ([0008]-[0009]). Bednarik et al. teaches that such cationic radiation curable inks do not exhibit ghosting when coated over by a radiation curable silicone release coating [0006].
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. by forming the color layer of an epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation, as taught by Bednarik et al., in order to prevent the occurrence of print defects such as ghosting.
With respect to the arrangement of the printed image, although Wieck et al. teaches that the antiadhesive coating is provided on the same side of the backing sheet as the color layer ([0020], [0032]), such that the color layer is disposed at least partly between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive coating, the reference does not specifically teach that the color layer is disposed completely between the backing sheet and the antiadhesive coating.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Al-Ali teaches a release liner (10) comprising a substrate (15; carrier layer) having several ink-printed features (printed image) printed on the first side (15a) of the substrate and a coating (20; release coating) provided over the ink, wherein an exemplary embodiment includes a logo (19a), model and manufacturer information (19b), instructions for use (19c), and an alignment aid (19d) printed in ink (17) on the first surface of the substrate ([0020]-[0021], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Suzuki et al., Al-Ali teaches that the release liner is intended to be used to cover the adhesive on the bottom surface of an article, where the release liner can be removed from the adhesive when the article is intended to be used ([0028], Fig. 3). Fig. 2 of Al-Ali illustrates the ink (17) being disposed completely between the substrate (15) and the coating (20), wherein the coating may beneficially serve to prevent the transfer of ink to the adhesive surface ([0024], [0026]).
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 film of Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik by forming the printed image such that it is disposed completely between the carrier layer and the release coating, as taught by Al-Ali, for the benefit of preventing the transfer of ink to an adhesive surface onto which the release film is intended to be applied.
Regarding claim 20, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al., Bednarik, and Al-Ali teaches all of the limitations of claim 39 above. While it is acknowledged that all of the claimed physical properties are not explicitly recited by Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik, the combination of references teaches all of the claimed features/materials/layers. Therefore, the claimed physical properties, i.e., not exhibiting a “rub off” detachment phenomenon in the context of the claimed testing parameters, would be inherently achieved by a release film with all the claimed features/materials/layers. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are obtainable only with the claimed features/layers/materials. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01 and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 38, Wieck et al. in view of Michel et al. and Bednarik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 39 above. As noted above, while Wieck et al. does not expressly teach that the printed image comprises an acrylate-based ink or an epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation, Bednarik et al. is relied upon to address this feature with its teaching of cationic radiation curable inks, which do not exhibit ghosting when coated over by a radiation curable silicone release coating [0006]. In particular, Bednarik et al. teaches that the cationic radiation curable inks have the general formulation of a cycloaliphatic resin, bisphenol epoxy resin, polyol, photoinitiator, bubble breaker, surfactant, wetting agent, and pigment ([0009]), such that the UV curable ink does not contain solvent.
Claims 20, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2001-031920, machine translation previously provided) in view of Schmitt (US 2001/0009701, previously cited), Michel et al. (US 2009/0186183, previously cited), and Al-Ali (US 2017/0173632, previously cited).
Regarding claim 39, Suzuki et al. teaches a release sheet (release film) comprising a base material (carrier layer) and a release agent (release coating) applied to the base material [0010]. The base material comprises an olefin film, and the release agent is formed by coating and curing a radical-reactive radiation-curable silicone on at least one side of the base material, wherein the silicone release agent is solvent-free and radically polymerized by radiation such as ultraviolet rays ([0001], [0012], [0015]). Therefore, Suzuki et al. teaches that the release agent comprises a polysiloxane which is cured by UV radiation and is radically cured. The coating amount (basis weight) of the release agent is appropriately adjusted within the range of 0.1 to 5.0 g/m2 ([0021]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 g/m2 to 0.460 g/m2. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Although Suzuki et al. teaches that the base material may be subjected to general printing, such as letterpress, offset, gravure, flexo, screen printing, etc., using UV curing ink, wherein the printed surface is coated with the silicone release agent ([0013], [0038]), the reference does not expressly teach that the UV curing ink comprises an acrylate-based ink or an epoxy-based ink.
However, in the analogous art of printed films, Schmitt teaches a process and device for curing UV printing ink, wherein conventional applications for UV curing printing inks are said to include letterpress, offset, flexographic, and silk screen printing ([0001], [0004]). Schmitt teaches that printing technology primarily uses radical curable printing inks since these provide a drying time which is shorter than that of a cationic curable printing ink, and because the radical curable inks have the additional advantage that their chemical composition can be widely varied, wherein conventional radical-induced polymerizing fixing agents are based on acrylates ([0003], [0037]).
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 sheet of Suzuki et al. by using an acrylate-based radically cured UV printing ink, as suggested by Schmitt, in order to achieve a short drying time for the ink, especially as compared to an ink cured by a cationic curing process.
With respect to the claimed corona pretreated surface, although Suzuki et al. teaches that the base material (carrier layer) is formed of a polyolefin film ([0001], [0010]), the reference does not expressly teach that the base material has a corona pretreated surface.
However, Michel et al. further teaches that such release liners are typically made of paper, polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene films with a silicone coating [0003]. Michel et al. teaches that the side of the film that is intended to have a release coating is preferably pretreated on the surface for the purpose of better adhesion of the release coating, wherein these pre-treatments may include chemical treatments or physical operations such as flame treatment, plasma treatment, or corona treatment [0049].
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 sheet of Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt by performing a corona pretreatment on a surface of the base film, as taught by Michel et al., in order to improve the adhesion between the base film and the release agent.
With respect to the arrangement of the printed image, Although Suzuki et al. teaches that the base material may be subjected to general printing, such as letterpress, offset, gravure, flexo, screen printing, etc., using UV curing ink, wherein the printed surface is coated with the silicone release agent ([0013], [0038]), such that a printed image is disposed at least partly between the base material and the release agent, the reference does not specifically teach that the printed image is disposed completely between the base material and the release agent.
However, in the analogous art of release films, Al-Ali teaches a release liner (10) comprising a substrate (15; carrier layer) having several ink-printed features (printed image) printed on the first side (15a) of the substrate and a coating (20; release coating) provided over the ink, wherein an exemplary embodiment includes a logo (19a), model and manufacturer information (19b), instructions for use (19c), and an alignment aid (19d) printed in ink (17) on the first surface of the substrate ([0020]-[0021], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Suzuki et al., Al-Ali teaches that the release liner is intended to be used to cover the adhesive on the bottom surface of an article, where the release liner can be removed from the adhesive when the article is intended to be used ([0028], Fig. 3). Fig. 2 of Al-Ali illustrates the ink (17) being disposed completely between the substrate (15) and the coating (20), wherein the coating may beneficially serve to prevent the transfer of ink to the adhesive surface ([0024], [0026]).
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 film of Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt and Michel et al. by forming the printed image such that it is disposed completely between the carrier layer and the release coating, as taught by Al-Ali, for the benefit of preventing the transfer of ink to an adhesive surface onto which the release film is intended to be applied.
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt, Michel et al., and Al-Ali teaches all of the limitations of claim 39 above. Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt, Michel et al., and Al-Ali teaches all of the limitations of claim 39 above. While it is acknowledged that all of the claimed physical properties are not explicitly recited by Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt, Michel et al., and Al-Ali, the combination of references teaches all of the claimed features/materials/layers. Therefore, the claimed physical properties, i.e., not exhibiting a “rub off” detachment phenomenon in the context of the claimed testing parameters, would be inherently achieved by a release film with all the claimed features/materials/layers. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are obtainable only with the claimed features/layers/materials. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01 and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 38, Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt, Michel et al., and Al-Ali teaches all of the limitations of claim 39 above. As noted above, while Suzuki et al. does not expressly teach that the printed image comprises an acrylate-based ink or an epoxy-based ink cured by UV radiation, Schmitt is relied upon to address this feature with its teaching of acrylate-based radically curable UV curing inks. Schmitt further teaches that UV curing printing inks contain low amounts of solvent or no solvent and thus have practical advantages compared to solvent-containing inks, e.g., with regard to their working lifetime, solvent related environmental pollution, and waste disposal [0002].
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 3 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed January 22, 2026.
However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are presented above with respect to claim 39.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant submits on pages 10-11 of the remarks filed January 22, 2026 that independent claims 1, 3, and 39 have been amended to further distinguish from the cited prior art, and that a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be maintained. The Applicant does not specifically explain how the amendments distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Nevertheless, in light of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejections based on Wieck et al., Michel et al., and Bednarik et al. have been modified to address the new combinations of limitations set forth in claims 1, 3, and 39. Sitzmann et al. is applied as an additional reference to address the new limitations in claim 3 directed to the claimed barrier layer, and a new ground of rejection over Suzuki et al. in view of Schmitt, Michel et al., and Al-Ali is presented with respect to independent claim 39. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785