DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/9/2023 and 6/12/2025 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1 and 4-5 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2011/0319560 A1) to Weiland et al. (hereinafter Weiland) in view of the teachings of (US 2018/0354229 A1) to Onishi et al. (hereinafter Onishi).
Weiland is directed toward optically clear polyurethane film adhesives. Weiland discloses at paragraph [0158] that the polyurethane has a clear transparency, which is used as the intermediate layer. Weiland discloses at paragraph [0025] that optically transparent adhesive is present. Weiland discloses at paragraph [0059] that an example of a double-sided adhesive tape, which reads on a first and second surface adhesive layer. Weiland discloses at paragraph [0013] that the polyurethane includes a amine hindered light stabilizer of 0.2% to 2%, which reads on 0.1 to 1 part per hundred of the polyol. Weiland discloses at paragraph [0075] that the film thickness is 4 to 150 microns, which reads on Applicants range of 100 to 2000 microns. Weiland discloses each and every element of the adhesive film, but is silent regarding the property of loss tangent.
Onishi is directed toward optically clear polyurethane film adhesives. Weiland and Onishi are both directed toward optically clear polyurethane film adhesives and therefore are analogous art. Onishi teaches at paragraph [0012] that the clear adhesive sheet has a loss tangent at 85C of 0.3 to 0.97, which reads on Applicants range of 0.25 to 0.6. Onishi teaches at paragraph [0011] that the loss tangent causes reduced or delayed bubble generation when adhered to a glass, which increases clarity and therefore provides motivation to one skilled in the art to use that range. Onishi teaches at paragraph [0014] that the polyisocyanate may be aliphatic, which is hydrophobic or an aromatic, which is hydrophilic. Onishi teaches at paragraph [0016] that the ratio of OH to NCO groups is 1.6 to 1.96, which reads on Applicants range of 1.0 to 1.8.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Weiland in view of the teachings of Onishi to modify the adhesive film of Weiland with the film base of Onishi that provides a based thermoset polyurethane film having a loss tangent that minimizes bubbles, which forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1 and 4-5.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
8. 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.
9. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights