RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status and Withdrawal of Finality
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are pending in the application.
The Examiner improperly issued a Final Rejection on this application on 28 April 2026, for at least the reasons that a) a new rejection was presented for claim 5 which was not necessitated by amendment, and also b) claim 21 was not addressed in the rejection either with a rejection or an indication of allowability. Accordingly, this office action is made NON-FINAL.
NEW AND REPEATED REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Morino (U.S. Pub. 2011/0046296) or alternately under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Morino.
Regarding claim 5, Morino describes a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape having a nonwoven fabric base material that is impregnated with the pressure-sensitive adhesive, see p. 8. [0076]. The adhesive may be a double-coated tape, see p. 8, [0068] and p. 13, [0120]. The adhesive is an acrylic copolymer, see p. 4, [0040], and is crosslinked, see p. 6, [0058]. See also the example at p. 10, [0086-0088] which includes a copolymer of n-butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, N-vinyl pyrrolidone, acrylic acid, and methacrylic acid which is crosslinked and serves as the adhesive copolymer.
The nonwoven base material has a basis weight in the range of 10-30 g/m2, preferably 14 to 20 g/m2 (see p. 8, [0076]), and is made with a paper machine (see p. 8-9, [0077]). The basis weight of the nonwoven fabric base material used in the examples is 17 g/ m2, see p. 13, [0119]. This is within the claimed range. The Examiner has considered this material to read on the claimed tissue support layer.
Morino teaches that the double-coated pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes formed by applying the aqueous dispersion adhesive to each side of a polyester film and then drying at 100 °C for five minutes to produce the adhesive sheet, see p. 14, [0120]. The Examiner has presumed that the dried adhesive tape has zero or minimal remaining water. Thus the resulting adhesive composition includes only the solids portions of the aqueous dispersion composition.
Morino teaches in Example 1 forming the adhesive copolymer from 227.5 g of n-butyl acrylate, 227.5 g of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and 48.33 g of other components, see p. 10, [0086]. Example 1 includes a total of 455 g of monomer components out of 503.3 g of total components, which is 90.4 wt. % of the monomer components, exceeding the minimum 80 wt. % as claimed for the composition. The components are polymerized as described at p. 10, [0087], reading on partial polymerization as claimed. Butyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate each read on monomers formed from an alkyl acrylate having from 4 to 18 carbon atoms. The Examiner has considered the composition of p. 10, [0086] to thus anticipate the composition of the claimed adhesive tape.
In the alternative, the adhesive tape formed from adhesive composition described herein is considered to render the claimed invention obvious. It is noted that the adhesive composition described at p. 10, [0086] contains 20 g of one surfactant, 37.5 g of another surfactant, 75 g of water, 0.2 g of lauryl mercaptan, and 503.13 g of monomer components. These components are reacted at described at p. 10, [0087] in 290 g of water, 5 g of ammonium persulfate solution (3 wt. % active component), 5 g of sodium hydrogen sulfite solution (3 wt. % active component), 40 g of ammonium persulfate (1.25 wt. % active component), and an unspecified amount of ammonia water (10 wt. % active component) to produce an acrylic polymer emulsion (B) with a solids content of 52.6 wt. %; this also reads on a composition. Paragraph [0088] discloses that this results in 950.57 g total (with 500 g dry content) of the acrylic copolymer emulsion (B), to which is added 2.5 g of leveling agent, 2.5 g of antifoaming agent, 0.15 g of epoxy compound crosslinking agent, 50 g of polymerized rosin ester tackifier, and 50 g of an emulsion-type rosin phenol tackifier. The major components in the composition are thus the water, monomer components and the tackifiers. This is approximately 500 g of polymer with 105 g of additional materials (agents and tackifiers) on a dry basis, which is just under 80 weight % of the one or more monomers as claimed.
However, Morino teaches more broadly using from 10 to 40 parts by weight of tackifier based on 100 pats by weight of the acrylic copolymer, see p. 6, [0057]. It would have been obvious to have used a slightly lower amount of tackifier to arrive at a composition which includes over 80 wt. % of the monomer components on a dry basis as the acrylic adhesive layer composition to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morino (U.S. Pub. 2011/0046296) in view of Okamoto (U.S. Pub. 2013/0078463).
Regarding claim 1, Morino describes a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape having a nonwoven fabric base material that is impregnated with the pressure-sensitive adhesive, see p. 8. [0076]. The adhesive may be a double-coated tape, see p. 8, [0068] and p. 13, [0120]. The adhesive is an acrylic copolymer, see p. 4, [0040], and is crosslinked, see p. 6, [0058]. See also the example at p. 10, [0086-0088] which includes a copolymer of n-butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, N-vinyl pyrrolidone, acrylic acid, and methacrylic acid which is crosslinked and serves as the adhesive copolymer.
The nonwoven base material has a basis weight in the range of 10-30 g/m2, preferably 14 to 20 g/m2 (see p. 8, [0076]), and is made with a paper machine (see p. 8-9, [0077]). The basis weight of the nonwoven fabric base material used in the examples is 17 g/ m2, see p. 13, [0119]. This is within the claimed range. The Examiner has considered this material to read on the claimed tissue support layer.
Morino does not specify that the double-sided adhesive tape has not more than 25 percent area occupied by air bubbles as measured by optical microscopy as claimed.
Okamoto describes an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive tape with a core layer and a surface acrylic polymer provided on each side of the core layer, see abstract and p. 1, [0010]. Suitable core layers include paper and nonwoven cloths and fabrics, see p. 11, [0101-0102]. The adhesive layer has a low haze and good transparency, see p. 22, [0194].
Okamoto discloses that bubbles may be added to the core layer, see p. 5, [0052], to obtain a tape with good adhesiveness to a curved surface and concave-convex surface. The amount of bubbles added may be in the range of 5-50% by volume, preferably 8-40% by volume, based on the whole volume of the core layer containing the bubbles, see p. 5, [0056]. Air may be the gas component of the bubbles, see p. 5, [0055].
While this discloses the volumetric loading of bubbles rather than the area loading of bubbles, the Examiner has presumed that a sufficiently low volumetric amount of bubbles will also result in a low areal amount of bubbles when measured by optical spectroscopy.
Furthermore, Okamoto notes that the bubbles may be added to the core layer, and thus the bubbles need not be present. In such a case, the adhesive tape has not more than 25 percent area occupied by air bubbles as claimed.
Morino and Okamoto are analogous because they each disclose double-sided acrylic adhesive tapes having nonwoven substrates. Okamoto and Morino also each teach using the adhesive materials as labels, see Okamoto at p. 26, [0215] and Morino at p. 1, [0003]. Thus they are similar in structure and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an adhesive sheet having bubbles in the core layer as taught in Okamoto as the bubble-containing tape can exhibit good adhesiveness to a curved surface and a concave-convex surface, and exhibit good resistance to resilience, see p. 5, [0052].
Regarding claim 2, Morino does not specify the haze value of the adhesive tape. However, Okamoto describes an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive tape with a core layer and a surface acrylic polymer provided on each side of the core layer, see abstract and p. 1, [0010]. Suitable core layers include paper and nonwoven cloths and fabrics, see p. 11, [0101-0102]. The adhesive layer has a low haze and good transparency, see p. 22, [0194]. The haze of the adhesive sheet was measured as described at p. 32, [0259] including attaching the adhesive sheet to a slide glass and measuring the haze of the structure in which the adhesive sheet and slide glass have been attached together using a haze meter. Haze of less than 10% was evaluated as “good”. See Table 6 for haze values of Examples 2-1 through 2-9 which are each less than 10% as noted.
The limitation “as measured by ASTM D-1003” is a limitation referring to the method of testing the haze of the adhesive sheet, and does not determine the patentability of the product. The method of testing the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Cf. MPEP § 2113 in regards to products made by different processes in which the product is the same or obvious over the product of the prior art, and MPEP § 2111.02(II) regarding preamble statements reciting the purpose or intended use of a product. Using any accurate method to determine the haze of the sheet can demonstrate the claimed property, unless the claimed process produces unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Morino teaches in Example 1 forming the adhesive copolymer from 227.5 g of n-butyl acrylate, 227.5 g of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and 48.33 g of other components, see p. 10, [0086]. The components are polymerized as described at p. 10, [0087], reading on partial polymerization as claimed. Butyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate each read on monomers formed from an alkyl acrylate having from 4 to 18 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 6, one of the other components of the acrylic adhesive of Example 1 is N-vinyl pyrrolidone, see p. 10, [0086]. Acrylic acid and methacrylic acid are also components of the adhesive copolymer. Each of these is among the listed further monomers.
Regarding claim 7, Morino also teaches including a crosslinking agent in the adhesive examples, see p. 6, [0058], and an initiator, see p. 7, [0064]. However, Morino does not specify using ultraviolet radiation to provide the first and/or second adhesive.
Okamoto similarly teaches an acrylic adhesive composition formed from C1-20 alkyl group acrylates and co-polymerizable monomers, see p. 2, [0020] and [0024]. In an example, Okamoto teaches an acrylic adhesive composition made from 86 parts of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and 14 parts of N-vinyl pyrrolidone monomers, see p. 28, [0228]. A photoinitiator and a cross-linking agent are also included, see p. 3, [0034] and p. 4, [0040]. The polymer is formed by UV polymerization, see p. 2, [0020] and p. 28, [0228]. The polymer may also be prepared as a partial polymer obtained by irradiating with UV rays, see p. 5, [0043].
Regarding claim 8, Morino teaches that the adhesive may be a double-coated tape, see p. 8, [0068] and p. 13, [0120]. The same adhesive is thus applied to each side of the tape.
Regarding claim 9, Morino teaches including a tackifier in the adhesive composition, see the example at p. 10, [0088].
Regarding claim 10, Morino teaches drying the adhesive composition at p. 13, [0120], which is presumed to remove any remaining solvent.
Additionally, the adhesive of Okamoto may be formed without a solvent, see p. 28, [0228] which does not include a solvent in the polymer syrup.
Regarding claim 11, the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric base material used in the examples is 17 g/ m2, see Morino at p. 13, [0119]. This is within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Morino teaches that the double-coated adhesive tape is backed with a PET film, see p. 9, [0083], reading on the claimed release liner. Morino also teaches at p. 13, [0120] applying the adhesive composition to a polyester film which is subjected to removal treatment, followed by transferring the adhesive sheet to either surface of nonwoven fabric. Thus the polyester film having removal treatment present adjacent to the adhesive layer reads on the adhesive layer having a release liner.
Okamoto similarly teaches that each adhesive layer is protected by a release liner, see p. 12, [0104] as well as p. 15, [0124].
Regarding claim 14, Morino teaches applying the pressure-sensitive double-coated tape to a stainless steel plate, see p. 13, [0124]. This reads on the claimed first substrate.
Regarding claim 15, Morino also teaches attaching the adhesive to a layer of ECS urethane foam and to stainless steel, see p. 13, [0131], reading on the claimed first and second substrates.
Regarding claim 16, Morino describes a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape having a nonwoven fabric base material that is impregnated with the pressure-sensitive adhesive, see p. 8. [0076]. The adhesive may be a double-coated tape, see p. 8, [0068] and p. 13, [0120]. The adhesive is an acrylic copolymer, see p. 4, [0040], and is crosslinked, see p. 6, [0058]. See also the example at p. 10, [0086-0088] which includes a copolymer of n-butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, N-vinyl pyrrolidone, acrylic acid, and methacrylic acid which is crosslinked and serves as the adhesive copolymer.
The nonwoven base material has a basis weight in the range of 10-30 g/m2, preferably 14 to 20 g/m2 (see p. 8, [0076]), and is made with a paper machine (see p. 8-9, [0077]). The basis weight of the nonwoven fabric base material used in the examples is 17 g/ m2, see p. 13, [0119]. This is within the claimed range. The Examiner has considered this material to read on the claimed tissue support layer.
Morino teaches that the acrylic copolymer impregnates the nonwoven fabric core, see p. 1, [0004] and p. 5, [0051].
Morino does not specify the haze value of the adhesive tape. However, Okamoto describes an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive tape with a core layer and a surface acrylic polymer provided on each side of the core layer, see abstract and p. 1, [0010]. Suitable core layers include paper and nonwoven cloths and fabrics, see p. 11, [0101-0102]. The adhesive layer has a low haze and good transparency, see p. 22, [0194]. The haze of the adhesive sheet was measured as described at p. 32, [0259] including attaching the adhesive sheet to a slide glass and measuring the haze of the structure in which the adhesive sheet and slide glass have been attached together using a haze meter. Haze of less than 10% was evaluated as “good”. See Table 6 for haze values of Examples 2-1 through 2-9 which are each less than 10% as noted.
The limitation “as measured by ASTM D-1003” is a limitation referring to the method of testing the haze of the adhesive sheet, and does not determine the patentability of the product. The method of testing the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Cf. MPEP § 2113 in regards to products made by different processes in which the product is the same or obvious over the product of the prior art, and MPEP § 2111.02(II) regarding preamble statements reciting the purpose or intended use of a product. Using any accurate method to determine the haze of the sheet can demonstrate the claimed property, unless the claimed process produces unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Morino does not specify that the double-sided adhesive tape has not more than 25 percent area occupied by air bubbles as measured by optical microscopy as claimed.
Okamoto describes an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive tape with a core layer and a surface acrylic polymer provided on each side of the core layer, see abstract and p. 1, [0010]. Suitable core layers include paper and nonwoven cloths and fabrics, see p. 11, [0101-0102]. The adhesive layer has a low haze and good transparency, see p. 22, [0194].
Okamoto discloses that bubbles may be added to the core layer, see p. 5, [0052], and that the amount of bubbles added may be in the range of 5-50% by volume, preferably 8-40% by volume, based on the whole volume of the core layer containing the bubbles, see p. 5, [0056]. Air may be the gas component of the bubbles, see p. 5, [0055].
While this discloses the volumetric loading of bubbles rather than the area loading of bubbles, the Examiner has presumed that a sufficiently low volumetric amount of bubbles will also result in a low areal amount of bubbles when measured by optical spectroscopy.
Furthermore, Okamoto notes that the bubbles may be added to the core layer, and thus the bubbles need not be present. In such a case, the adhesive tape has not more than 25 percent area occupied by air bubbles as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Morino teaches in Example 1 forming the adhesive copolymer from 227.5 g of n-butyl acrylate, 227.5 g of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and 48.33 g of other components, see p. 10, [0086]. The components are polymerized as described at p. 10, [0087]. Butyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate each read on monomers formed from an alkyl acrylate having from 4 to 18 carbon atoms as in claim 18.
Okamoto similarly teaches an acrylic adhesive composition formed from C1-20 alkyl group acrylates and co-polymerizable monomers, see p. 2, [0020] and [0024]. In an example, Okamoto teaches an acrylic adhesive composition made from 86 parts of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and 14 parts of N-vinyl pyrrolidone monomers, see p. 28, [0228]. The polymer may be prepared as a partial polymer obtained by irradiating with UV rays, see p. 5, [0043].
Regarding claim 19, Morino teaches that the adhesive may be a double-coated tape, see p. 8, [0068] and p. 13, [0120]. The same adhesive is thus applied to each side of the tape.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morino (U.S. Pub. 2011/0046296) in view of Okamoto (U.S. Pub. 2013/0078463) as applied above, and further in view of JP 2007-268818 A. A machine translation of JP ‘818 was relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 12, Morino and Okamoto are relied upon as described above in regards to claim 16. The references do not specify that the tissue support has at least 80 percent haze as measured by ASTM D-1003 as claimed.
JP ‘818 describes an information concealment sheet having a transparent adhesive layer and a base paper material (see paragraph [0007]). The base paper may be various types of paper including impregnated paper, and is made of an opaque material so that concealment information on the back surface cannot be read. The transparent adhesive is an acrylic adhesive, see paragraph [0019].
The Examiner has presumed that an opaque paper layer is considered to have a haze value of 100% as measured by ASTM D-1003.
Morino, Okamoto, and JP ‘818 are analogous because they each disclose acrylic adhesive tapes with impregnated support/facestock layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an opaque facestock for an adhesive label so that the label can be printed on while concealing the printed information behind the opaque facestock.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 28 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5 of record over Morino have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 3-4 of the remarks that the relied-upon paragraphs of Morino do not read on the claimed invention as there is no evidence that one of skill in the art would dry the composition so that the dried adhesive tape includes “at least 80 percent by weight of the one or more monomers, base on the total weight of the composition” as claimed.
The Examiner disagrees. Claim 5 requires that at least one of the first or second pressure-sensitive adhesive is derived from a composition comprising one or more monomers as specified and a polymer prepared from partial polymerization (emphasis added). The compositions at p. 10, [0086] and [0087] of Morino include these components are described in the rejection above. Notably, the final adhesive layer need not have the same components as the composition from which it was derived. In particular, monomers in the original composition will become partially or fully polymerized and thus no longer present in the resulting adhesive. Water present in one composition can be removed by drying and thus no longer be present in a subsequent adhesive.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained. The Examiner has also changed this to a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 28 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, and 13-19 of record over Morino in view of Okamoto have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established as the office relies on different embodiments of Okamoto to arrive at the basis for rejection.
The Examiner has modified the rejection accordingly to clarify the use of bubbles in the adhesive tape in Okamoto.
Applicant further argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success provided in obtaining low haze with the combination of Okamoto and Morino as incorporating the adhesive of Okamoto into the aqueous emulsion-particle system of Morino would not necessarily provide a low haze adhesive.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that claim 1 is silent regarding the haze of the adhesive tape or any component thereof and thus this argument is moot with respect to claims 1, 4-11 and 13-15. The Examiner has considered this argument in regards to claims 2, 12, and 16-21 which do have haze requirements. In that regard, the combination of Okamoto and Morino does not require replacing the adhesive of Morino with that of Okamoto, but modifying the core layer of Morino to have bubbles as taught in Okamoto.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not discussed a release surface in regards to claim 13, and has not provided a basis for rejection of claim 21.
The Examiner has clarified the rejection of 13 and also added a rejection of claim 21. Both Morino and Okamoto disclose release liners as described in the rejection above.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 28 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 20 of record over Morino in view of Okamoto and JP 2007-268818 A have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the additional reference fails to remedy the deficiencies of Morino and Okamoto. However, Morino and Okamoto are not deficient as described above. Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
New grounds of rejection are presented in this Office action which were not necessitated by applicant's amendment. Accordingly, this action is Non-Final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights