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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the newly amended claims filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the argument that Watanabe et al. teaches a transparency of 30% or more while the current limitation recites 20% or less: transparency is a recognized result-effective variable. Watanabe explicitly teaches the addition of black colorants to adjust the transparency of the material. It is a well-settled principle that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) MPEP §2144.05.
A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would be motivated to simply increase the concentration of the light-absorbing colorant disclosed in Watanabe to achieve a lower transparency level (20% or less) if a more opaque material were desired. The claimed range does not produce an unexpected result different in kind from the prior art; rather, it represents a routine optimization of the colorant levels taught by Watanabe. Therefore, the selection of this range is considered an obvious design choice to a PHOSITA under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2020002203 A) in view of Horiguchi et al. (WO 2019065358 A1) in view of Dougherty et al. (US 20200181324 A1).
CLAIM 14. Watanabe et al discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet having a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a optimizable light transmittance percentage %1 or lower and an L* value of 20 or higher and 70 or lower 2, defined in the L*a*b* color space (Watanabe et al. – see footnotes for relevant passages from translated document.)
Wantanabe et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, however may be silent upon wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises both a black colorant as a first colorant and a metal oxide as a second colorant and the transparency may be adjusted below 20%. At the time of the claimed invention's filing, the use of black colorant and/or metal oxide to optimize Pressure Sensitive Adhesive (PSA) properties was known and practiced.
See Horiguchi et al.:
“The pressure-sensitive adhesive film disclosed herein may optionally include, in addition to the specific absorbent, a laser light absorbent other than the specific absorbent. Hereinafter, laser light absorbents other than the specific absorbents that are used supplementary as described above are also referred to as “auxiliary absorbents”. The auxiliary absorbent may be used, for example, for the purpose of improving the absorptivity of the pressure-sensitive adhesive film, adjusting the transmittance and the reflectance, adjusting the appearance, and the like. Auxiliary absorbers include metals such as aluminum, copper, silver and gold; metal compounds such as oxides, nitrides and carbides of the above metals; carbon black; phthalocyanine compounds, cyanine compounds, aminium compounds, naphthalocyanine compounds Organic compounds such as compounds, naphthoquinone compounds, dimonium compounds, anthraquinone compounds and the like can be used.”
As disclosed in Horiguchi et al., a Pressure Sensitive Adhesive (PSA) film can optionally include, besides a specific absorbent, an "auxiliary absorbent." This "auxiliary absorbent" can be used to improve the film's light absorptivity, adjust its transmittance and reflectance, and modify its appearance.
Examples of such auxiliary absorbents include:
Metals such as aluminum, copper, silver, and gold, Metal compounds such as oxides, nitrides, and carbides of the aforementioned metals, Carbon black.
Horiguchi et al. further demonstrates that combinations of metal oxides and/or carbon black were understood to be adjustable additions for tailoring specific properties like light absorption, scattering, and/or reflection. Therefore, simply including these known optional materials to achieve desired device performance would have been considered an obvious design choice for someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
A person with ordinary knowledge and expertise in the relevant field would have found it obvious to use these materials in combination to optimize the PSA film's properties, rather than an inventive. In essence, it would have been a matter of routine optimization or obvious design choice, relying on the recognized suitability and equivalence of these known materials (metal oxides and/or carbon black) to adjust specific properties (like light absorption/scattering/reflection) of the PSA film. See MPEP 2144.03, MPEP 2144.06, and MPEP 2144.07 for additional detail.
Further regarding specific transparency ranges, Watanabe et al. teaches a transparency of 30% or more while the current limitation recites 20% or less: transparency is a recognized result-effective variable. Watanabe and Horiguchi explicitly teach the addition of black colorants to adjust the transparency of the material. It is a well-settled principle that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) MPEP §2144.05.
A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would be motivated to simply increase the concentration of the light-absorbing colorant disclosed in Watanabe to achieve a lower transparency level (20% or less) if a more opaque material were desired. The claimed range does not produce an unexpected result different in kind from the prior art; rather, it represents a routine optimization of the colorant levels taught by Watanabe. Therefore, the selection of this range is considered an obvious design choice to a PHOSITA under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the recited peel strength of wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive sheet has a 180 peel strength of 1.0 N/25mm or greater. Wantanabe is silent upon a 180 degree eel strength, however is a optimizable parameter. As taught in Wantanabe, adhesive properties are optimized by adding adhesive material such as a resin by parts by weight to achieve desired adhesion. As taught in Dougherty, which teaches resins additives for PSA tapes (¶85) may have reach 180 deg peel strengths much higher than 1 N/25mm (¶271).
A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would be motivated to simply increase the concentration of adhesive additive to achieve a desired adhesion level if more opaque material were desired. The claimed range does not produce an unexpected result different in kind from the prior art; rather, it represents a routine optimization of the adhesion levels taught by Watanabe. Therefore, the selection of this range is considered an obvious design choice to a PHOSITA under 35 U.S.C. 103.
CLAIM 15. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a* and b* values defined in the L*a*b* color space, each in the range of -10 or higher and +10 or lower (Wantanab et al. – “ When the blue colorant is used as the functional additive, the a * coordinate is preferably -8.0 or more, particularly preferably -7.5 or more, and more preferably -7.5. It is preferably 0 or more. The a * coordinate is preferably -1.0 or less, particularly preferably -1.5 or less, and more preferably -2.0 or less. When the a * coordinate is within the above range, the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet 1 easily emits a desired blue color.
When a blue colorant is used as a functional additive, the b * coordinate is preferably -20 or more, particularly preferably -19 or more, and more preferably -18 or more. preferable. Further, the b * coordinate is preferably -5.0 or less, particularly preferably -6 or less, and more preferably -7 or less. When the b * coordinate is within the above range, the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet 1 easily emits a desired blue color.“).
CLAIM 17. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 16, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains the metal oxide in an amount of 1 % by weight or higher and 6 % by weight or lower. The recited ranges are recognized as suitable parameters within the known ranges used to optimize parameters. Horiguchi teaches:
“In the pressure-sensitive adhesive film disclosed herein, the content of the specific absorbent is not particularly limited, and can be appropriately selected, for example, from the range of 0.01% by weight to 20% by weight. In some embodiments, the content of the specific absorbent may be, for example, 0.05% by weight or more, may be 0.1% by weight or more, may be 0.3% by weight or more, and may be 0.5% by weight or more. However, it may be 0.8% by weight or more. When the content of the specific absorbent increases, the absorptivity of the specific laser light tends to increase. On the other hand, if the content of the specific absorbent is too large, the energy of the absorbed specific laser light may be easily diffused in the surface direction, and energy loss may increase. From this point of view, the content of the specific absorbent is usually 15% by weight or less, preferably 10% by weight or less, more preferably 7% by weight or less, and 5% by weight or less or less than 5% by weight May be.
The pressure-sensitive adhesive film disclosed herein may optionally include, in addition to the specific absorbent, a laser light absorbent other than the specific absorbent. Hereinafter, laser light absorbents other than the specific absorbents that are used supplementary as described above are also referred to as “auxiliary absorbents”. The auxiliary absorbent may be used, for example, for the purpose of improving the absorptivity of the pressure-sensitive adhesive film, adjusting the transmittance and the reflectance, adjusting the appearance, and the like. Auxiliary absorbers include metals such as aluminum, copper, silver and gold; metal compounds such as oxides, nitrides and carbides of the above metals; carbon black; phthalocyanine compounds, cyanine compounds, aminium compounds, naphthalocyanine compounds Organic compounds such as compounds, naphthoquinone compounds, dimonium compounds, anthraquinone compounds and the like can be used.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the “amount by weight” through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the amount by weight” is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 18. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 16, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains the black colorant in an amount below 2 % by weight (See Horiguchi et al.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the “amount by weight” through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the amount by weight” is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 19. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 16, wherein the first colorant contained in an amount C1 and thee second colorant contained in an amount C2 satisfy a ratio (C1/C2) by weight in the range between 0.01 and 0.30 (See Horiguchi et al.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the “amount by weight” through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the amount by weight” is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 20. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising an acrylic polymer as a base polymer (Wantanabe et al. –“ In the base material 11, it is preferable that an easy-adhesion layer is provided on at least the surface on which the adhesive layer 12 is laminated, for the purpose of improving the adhesion to the adhesive layer 12. Although the material of the easy-adhesion layer is not particularly limited, for example, a polyester resin, a urethane resin, a polyester urethane resin, an acrylic resin, or the like can be used. “)
CLAIM 21. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet is an adhesively double-faced pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet formed of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and is free of a substrate (Wantanabe et al. – A single layer of adhesive naturally has two sides [top/bottom] and free a intermediate substrate)
CLAIM 22. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to-Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet is applied to a region that includes a processed area of a processed metal member (This limitation does not define further structural features of the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet, as the recited intended use does not impart a structural distinction to the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111, 2115.)
CLAIM 23. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14 for use in joining a metal member in a portable electronic device.( The phrase "for use in joining a metal member in a portable electronic device" describes an intended use of the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet and does not, in itself, provide any further structural distinction to the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2111, 2173.05(g), and 2114.)
CLAIM 24. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has the light transmittance of 1% or higher and 20 % or lower and the L* value of 20 or higher and 60 or lower (Wantanabe et al. -- See regarding claim 14.).
CLAIM 25. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the metal oxide has a mean particle diameter of 300 nm or less (Horiguchi et al. ¶¶ 35 and 91–100 provide examples of known and suitable average particle sizes. Particle size is a known optimizable parameter. A person of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices would have found it obvious to determine the workable or optimal value for the average particle diameter through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve desired device performance. This is because average particle diameter is a result-effective variable, and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results. The discovery of optimal or workable ranges of a result-effective variable through routine experimentation within prior art conditions is not considered inventive. See MPEP § 2144.05.)
Claim(s) 26-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 2020002203 A) in view of Horiguchi et al. (WO 2019065358 A1) in view of Dougherty et al. (US 20200181324 A1)in view of Oshita et al. (US 20110230609 A1)
CLAIM 26. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes a tackifier resin however are silent upon wherein the tackifier is selected from the group consisting of phenolic tackifier resins, terpene-based tackifier resins and modified terpene-based tackifier resins. Such tackifiers were well known and selected at the time of the invention by a POSITA. For example, see Ohita et al. teaches selection of tackifiers for analogous pressure sensitive adhesives with a properties and transmittance are known to use phenolic or terpene specific tackifiers.
[0155] Including a tackifier resin in the adhesive composition for an optical film of the present invention facilitates adjustment of the tack, adhesive strength, and retention. As the tackifier resin, any tackifier resin that is conventionally used in an adhesive composition may be used. Examples thereof include natural resins, such as rosin resins and terpene resins; and synthetic resins such as petroleum resins, coumarone-indene resins, phenolic resins, xylene resins and styrene resins. These tackifier resins may be used alone, or two or more kinds may be used in combination.
[0156] Of these tackifier resins, from the perspectives of a high compatibility with the acrylic triblock copolymer (I) and a stable adhesive strength, it is preferred to use a terpene resin, such as a hydrogenated terpene resin or a terpene phenol resin; a rosin resin, such as a hydrogenated rosin ester, a disproportionated rosin ester, or a polymerized rosin; a petroleum resin such as C5/C9 petroleum resin or an aromatic petroleum resin; and a styrene resin, such as an .alpha.-methylstyrene polymer or a styrene/.alpha.-methylstyrene copolymer. These may be used alone, or two or more kinds may be used in combination.
[0157] To achieve a high adhesive strength, the softening point of the tackifier resin is preferably 50 to 150.degree. C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a tackifier from the group consisting of phenolic tackifier resins, terpene-based tackifier resins and modified terpene-based tackifier resins since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 27. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. in view of Oshita et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes a tackifier resin having a softening point of higher than 105 °C and 200 °C or lower (See regarding claim 26 - Oshita et al. ¶157).
CLAIM 28. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. in view of Oshita et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes a terpene phenolic resin (See regarding claim 26 - Oshita et al. ¶157).
CLAIM 29. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. in view of Oshita et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, however may be silent upon wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes a tackifier resin having a hydroxyl value of higher than 20 mg KOH/g and 200 mgKOH/g or lower. The values as recited are expected ranges for the claimed and disclosed tackifiers. The recited property is a known optimizable valued selected to achieve desired results. See Dougherty et a. ¶338 & 340 which teach terpene phenolic resin tackifiers (and other identical tackifiers to Oshita et al.) are known to have parameters with in the range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known tackifier with desired properties since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the hydroxyl value through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the hydroxyl value is a result-effective variable (See Dourghtery ¶340) and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 30. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. in view of Oshita et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes a tackifier resin in an amount of 1 part by weight or more and 50 parts by weight or less to 100 parts by weight of a base polymer of the pressure- sensitive adhesive layer (Ohita et al. ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the parts by weight ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the parts by weight ratio is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 31. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. in view of Oshita et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14.
Regarding “wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has the light transmittance of 20 % or lower and the L* value of 20 or higher and 65 or lower.” Watanabe et al. teaches a transparency of 30% or more while the current limitation recites 20% or less: transparency is a recognized result-effective variable. Watanabe and Horiguchi explicitly teach the addition of black colorants to adjust the transparency of the material. It is a well-settled principle that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) MPEP §2144.05.
A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would be motivated to simply increase the concentration of the light-absorbing colorant disclosed in Watanabe to achieve a lower transparency level (20% or less) if a more opaque material were desired. The claimed range does not produce an unexpected result different in kind from the prior art; rather, it represents a routine optimization of the colorant levels taught by Watanabe. Therefore, the selection of this range is considered an obvious design choice to a PHOSITA under 35 U.S.C. 103.
CLAIM 32. Wantanabe et al. in view of Horiguchi et al. in view of Dougherty et al. in view of Oshita et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet according to Claim 14, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises at least one species of a base polymer selected from the group consisting of an acrylic polymer, a rubber-based polymer, a polyester-based polymer, a urethane-based polymer, a polyether-based polymer, a polyamide-based polymer, and a fluoropolymer (Wantanabe – “ In the base material 11, it is preferable that an easy-adhesion layer is provided on at least the surface on which the adhesive layer 12 is laminated, for the purpose of improving the adhesion to the adhesive layer 12. Although the material of the easy-adhesion layer is not particularly limited, for example, a polyester resin, a urethane resin, a polyester urethane resin, an acrylic resin, or the like can be used. In particular, it is preferable that at least a part of the material of the easy-adhesion layer be dissolved in a solvent used for a coating solution of the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition. When the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is formed on the easy-adhesion layer made of such a material, it is presumed that a mixed layer of materials derived from both layers is formed at the interface between the easy-adhesion layer and the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, This is because the adhesiveness between the adhesive layer and the adhesive layer is further improved. The thickness of the easily adhesive layer is usually at least 0.005 μm, preferably at least 0.01 μm. Further, the thickness is usually 10 μm or less, and preferably 5 μm or less.”).
Conclusion
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
3/16/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Wantanabe et al – “ When a black colorant is used as the functional additive, the total light transmittance is preferably 30% or more, particularly preferably 40% or more, and more preferably 50% or more. Is preferred. Further, the total light transmittance is preferably 80% or less, particularly preferably 75% or less, and further preferably 70% or less. When the total light transmittance is within these ranges, the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet 1 tends to have a desired black color.”
2 Wantanabe et al. – “(3) CIELAB Coordinates In the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet 1 according to the present embodiment, each coordinate (L *, a *, b *) of the CIE1976 (L *, a *, b *) color space (CIELAB) in the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 12. Is preferably adjusted according to the type of the functional additive described above.
For example, when a black colorant is used as a functional additive, the L * coordinate relating to lightness is preferably 95 or less, particularly preferably 90 or less, and further preferably 85 or less. . When the L * coordinate is 95 or less, the pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet 1 easily has a desired black color. The lower limit of the L * coordinate is not particularly limited, and is, for example, preferably 70 or more, particularly preferably 75 or more, and further preferably 80 or more.”