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
Amendments to claims 1 and 5, filed on 24 February 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claim 21 has been added and claim 3 has been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1, 2 and 4-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 over Morino (U.S. Pub. 2011/0046296), made of record on page 3, paragraph 6 of the office action mailed 24 September 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 24 February 2026. In particular, Morino does not specify that the adhesive tape has not more than 25 percent area occupied by air bubbles as claimed.
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 § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morino (U.S. Pub. 2011/0046296).
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 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 as in claim 4.
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.
Example 1 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. %. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, and 13-19 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], 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.
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 a low amount of bubbles in the tape in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such an adhesive sheet because this results in low haze and good transparency, see p. 22, [0194] of Okamoto. This can provide for a see-through label look.
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 as in claim 4.
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 claim 13, Morino teaches that the double-coated adhesive tape is backed with a PET film, see p. 9, [0083], reading on the claimed release liner.
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 24 February 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, and 16-19 of record over Morino in view of Okamoto have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 of the remarks that the rejection lacks the rational underpinning required to support a legal conclusion of obviousness, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success in the proposed combination of references.
In particular, applicant argues that the relied upon low haze adhesive sheet includes no bubbles, the disclosure of “low haze” in Okamoto is limited to Embodiment 2 while the disclose of bubbles is limited to Embodiment 1.
The Examiner notes that 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. Furthermore, if bubbles are added to the core layer, 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, [0052], [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.
Applicant separately argues the rejection of claim 16 at p. 11, arguing that the office action has not established that the cited references suggest each and every limitation of the claim, as the adhesive tape referenced in paragraph [0259] does not include the core layer as specified in the claim.
However, the rejection previously of record, as well as the rejection recited above, each note that “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].” This impregnated nonwoven fabric base material reads on the impregnated tissue support as claimed.
Regarding the argument that the office action shows that the adhesive can be made with low haze but fails to establish that the adhesive tape exhibits not more than 65 % haze, the Examiner is not persuaded. The rejection refers to examples of Okamoto in which the adhesive tape haze is measured, and a 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. Okamoto also establishes the benefits of a sufficiently transparent adhesive which gives a “no label” look.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in the response regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 20 of record over Morino, Okamoto, and JP 2007-268818 A have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection is contradictory, as Okamoto describes low haze adhesive sheets with good transparency while JP ‘818 describes opaque adhesive tapes.
The Examiner notes that applicant’s claims are equally contradictory at first glance, as claim 16 requires that the adhesive tape exhibits not more than 65% haze while claim 20 requires that the tissue support exhibits at least 80% haze. However, the haze of the overall adhesive tape is different than the haze of the tissue support layer alone. It may be desired to have a transparent adhesive combined with an opaque support layer to securely attach the support layer while also allowing users to see through the adhesive layer to read indicia printed on the opaque support. Okamoto teaches that the core layer may include bubbles in an amount up to 50% by volume, see p. 5, [0056], which would contribute to haze. Thus the reference teaches both low-haze transparent labels as well as higher haze labels that are not transparent. JP ‘818 provides further detail for a core layer that is opaque to provide a sufficiently high haze. Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 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