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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 1/9/26 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. Claims 11 and 12 remain withdrawn. Claim 21 has been newly added. This leaves claims 1, 4-10, and 13-21 currently active and pending.
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, 5-10, 13-15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazejewski et al. (US 2018/0112110) in view of Homann et al. (US 2020/0091472).
Regarding claims 1, 5-10, 15, 19, and 21, Blazejewski teaches an adhesive tape that is redetachable (releasable) via stretching (Blazejewski para 54) urethane carrier layer (Blazejewski para 140, 142, 145) may be a polyester diol or a polyether diol, such as polypropylene glycol or polyethylene glycol (Blazejewski para 142) and a microballoon foamed pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer of a vinylaromatic adhesive, particularly styrene-butadiene block copolymer (Blazejewski para 54, 62, 69, 71, 75, 77, 114, 115). Blazejewski further teaches an exemplary thickness of the carrier layer at 30 µm, coated on each side with about 35 µm of PSA, for a total laminate thickness of 100 µm (Blazejewski para 162-164), thus providing a double-sided adhesive tape.
Blazejewski does not teach a polyurethane from dispersion (PUD) that is then further crosslinked by an additional crosslinking element of aziridine, carbodiimide, melamine, or isoscyanate.
Blazejewski and Homann are related in the field of tapes comprising polyurethane. Homann teaches that the polyurethane is preferably formed by dispersion for increased elasticity (Homann para 19, 22, 47) and may include additional melamine or isocyanate crosslinking agents to allow for further crosslinking of the of the urethane groups via any free -OH leftover from the initial formation of the urethane to improve crosslinking (Homann para 51). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a polyurethane dispersion with additional melamine or isocyanate crosslinking agent as taught by Homann as the carrier polyurethane of Blazejewski because this would provide an improved polyurethane carrier with improved flexibility and crosslinking.
Because Blazejewski in view of Homann teaches the same materials, at the same thicknesses, with the same structure, it would be expected to possess the same properties, such as the claimed ratio of stripping force F-strip to breaking force Fbreak of less than 60% and the claimed ratio of tearing force to a stripping force of greater than two.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Blazejewski in view of Homann teaches a redetachable PSA tape as above for claim 1. Blazejewski further teaches the PSA may be used in bonding electronic components, that is, bonding a first component to a second component within an electronic device (Blazejewski para 19-51).
Regarding claim 18, Blazejewski in view of Homann teaches a PSA with a foamed polyurethane carrier formed from a polyurethane dispersion as above for claim 1.
While Blazejewski teaches that the carrier may be foamed (Blazejewski para 142, specifically incorporates EP 1 308 492 B1), Blazejewski is silent with respect to the foaming being formed by microballoons.
However, Blazejewski further teaches that microballoons as a foaming agent provide the benefits of a flexible thermoplastic polymer shell, such as compensation for manufacturing tolerances (Blazejewski para 15) and smooth surfaces (Blazejewski para 212). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the foaming agent of Blazejewski’s polyurethane carrier layer to use microballoons because they provide the benefits of improve manufacturing tolerances and smooth surfaces.
Claims 4, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazejewski in view of Homann, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Chavannavar et al. (“Crosslinking Polyurethane Dispersions” attached).
Regarding claims 4, 16, 17, and 20, Blazejewski in view of Homann teaches a PSA with a foamed polyurethane carrier formed from a polyurethane dispersion as above for claim 1. As noted above, Blazejewski further teaches the carrier may be foamed (Blazejewski para 142).
Blazejewski in view of Homann is silent with respect to the amount of crosslinking agent used being from 0.5-10 wt%.
Blazejewski in view of Homann and Chavannavar are related in the field of crosslinked polyurethane dispersions. Chavannavar teaches that dispersions have good film formation (Chavannavar) and that exact amount and crosslinking agent chosen can depend on various factors, but that 3 and 6 wt% are common values, with notable improvements for isocyanate for chemical resistance at 3 and 6 wt%, while 3 and 6 wt% of melamine both provided improved durability (Chavannavar throughout, particularly Conclusion). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from 3-6 wt% of crosslinking agent for Blazejewski in view of Homann as taught by Chavannavar, no matter if the isocyanate or melamine are chosen, because this amount of crosslinking agent provides various physical and/or chemical durability improvements to the final polyurethane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides summary on pages 5-6 with arguments appearing to begin at the bottom of page 6.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that because the carrier polyurethane of Blazejewski and the carrier polyurethane of Homann are directed to carrying different types of adhesives they are sufficiently divergent in subject matter that they are not combinable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This appears to be an argument that Blazejewski and Homann are nonanalogous art, as it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both are drawn to carrier polyurethanes. Further, both are drawn to carrier polyurethanes for adhesives.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Incompatible Technologies and No Reasonable Expectation of Success are not persuasive as they appear to be arguing against stances the Examiner did not make. To whit, Applicant appears to argue that the Examiner is modifying the PSA of Blazejewski with the PU of Homann, which is not what was said in the above action. Rather, the polyurethane of Homann was used to modify the polyurethane of Blazejewski.
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 LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/L.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 5/14/26
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights