DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated November 20, 2005. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 12, 14 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mag et al. (USPN 10,000,018).
Mag et al. disclose an electronic component (Abstract; Figures) comprising: a sensor body (Figure 1B, #114; Column 1, lines 18 – 22); and a double-sided tape attached to a surface of the sensor body (Figures 1A and B, #108), wherein the double-sided tape has at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double- sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Column 6, lines 17 – 20), and the double-sided tape has an adhesive layer and a separator attached to the adhesive layer (Figure 1A, #104, 108 and 112) and a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator (Figure 1A, #104, at the end near the split in the adhesive layer) as in claim 8. In claim 12, the at least one cut is located on a side of the outer peripheral edge of the double-sided tape (Column 6, lines 17 – 20; Figures 1A and B). As in claim 14, a separator attached to a principal surface of the double-sided tape such that the double-sided tape is between the sensor body and the separator (Figures 1A and 1B; Column 4, line 54 to Column 5, line 53). With respect to claim 15, Regarding claim 16, the separator includes a release portion that is not attached to the double-sided tape at the peeling start position (Figure 1A, #104, wherein the release liner is bigger than the adhesive layer). For claim 17, the at least one cut is located at a position overlapping the electronic component in the plan view of the double-sided tape (Figure 1B, #108 and 114). Mag at al. further disclose a double-sided tape for attaching an electronic component to a housing of an electronic device (Figures 1A and 1B; Abstract), the double-sided tape including at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double-sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Column 6, lines 17 – 20; Figures 1A and 1B, #108) and the double-sided tape has an adhesive layer and a separator attached to the adhesive layer (Figure 1A, #104, 108 and 112) and a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator (Figure 1A, #104, at the end near the split in the adhesive layer) as in claim 18.
Claims 18 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsubaki et al. (USPGPub 2013/0228267 A1).
Tsubaki et al. further disclose a double-sided tape for attaching an electronic component to a housing of an electronic device (Figures; Abstract; A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Tsubaki et al. is designed to be attached to adhered, which could include an electronic component.), the double- sided tape including at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double-sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Figures; Paragraphs 0038 and 0039) and the double-sided tape has an adhesive layer and a separator attached to the adhesive layer (Abstract) and a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator (Abstract; Figures, wherein the tape may have a cut anywhere in the surface of the tape) as in claim 18. With respect to claim 19, the double-sided tape includes: a substrate; a first adhesive layer attached to a first principal surface of the substrate; and a second adhesive layer attached to a second principal surface of the substrate, wherein at least the substrate has the at least one cut (Figures; Paragraph 0070, 0105 and 0106). Regarding claim 20, the at least one cut extends through the substrate, the first adhesive layer, and the second adhesive layer (Figures; Paragraph 0070, 0105 and 0106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8 – 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubaki et al. (USPGPub 2013/0228267 A1) in view of Mag et al. (USPN 10,000,018).
Tsubaki et al. disclose a double-sided tape attached to a surface of an adherend (Abstract; Figures), wherein the double-sided tape has at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double- sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Figures; Paragraphs 0038 and 0039) as in claim 8. With respect to claim 9, the double-sided tape has a substrate, a first adhesive layer attached to a first principal surface of the substrate, and a second adhesive layer attached to a second principal surface of the substrate, and at least the substrate has the at least one cut (Figures; Paragraph 0070, 0105 and 0106). Regarding claim 10, the at least one cut extends through the substrate, the first adhesive layer, and the second adhesive layer (Figures; Paragraph 0070, 0105 and 0106). For claim 11, the at least one cut is located at a corner of the double- sided tape (Figures, wherein the tape may have a cut anywhere in the surface of the tape). In claim 12, the at least one cut is located on a side of the outer peripheral edge of the double-sided tape (Figures; Paragraphs 0038 and 0039). With respect to claim 13, the at least one cut is a plurality of cuts (Figures; Paragraphs 0038 and 0039). With respect to claim 15, the at least one cut is located at a peeling start position of the separator attached to the principal surface of the double- sided tape (Figures, wherein the tape may have a cut anywhere in the surface of the tape). However, Tsubaki et al. fail to disclose an electronic component comprising: a sensor body; and a double-sided tape attached to a surface of the sensor body, a separator attached to a principal surface of the double-sided tape such that the double-sided tape is between the sensor body and the separator, and the at least one cut is located at a position overlapping the electronic component in the plan view of the double-sided tape.
Mag et al. teach an electronic component (Abstract; Figures) comprising: a sensor body (Figure 1B, #114; Column 1, lines 18 – 22); and a double-sided tape attached to a surface of the sensor body (Figures 1A and B, #108), wherein the double-sided tape has at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double- sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Column 6, lines 17 – 20), a separator attached to a principal surface of the double-sided tape such that the double-sided tape is between the sensor body and the separator (Figures 1A and 1B; Column 4, line 54 to Column 5, line 53), and the at least one cut is located at a position overlapping the electronic component in the plan view of the double-sided tape (Figure 1B, #108 and 114) for the purpose of adhering a component to the interior surface of a housing (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electronic component in Tsubaki et al. in order to adhere a component to the interior surface of a housing as taught by Mag et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Among the limitations of independent claims 8 and 18 which are neither disclosed nor suggested in the art of record is a double-sided tape that "has at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double-sided tape in a plan view of the double- sided tape,", "an adhesive layer and a separator attached to the adhesive layer," and wherein "a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator."”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both references clearly discloses the above limitations. Mag et al. disclose an electronic component (Abstract; Figures) comprising: a sensor body (Figure 1B, #114; Column 1, lines 18 – 22); and a double-sided tape attached to a surface of the sensor body (Figures 1A and B, #108), wherein the double-sided tape has at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double- sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Column 6, lines 17 – 20), and the double-sided tape has an adhesive layer and a separator attached to the adhesive layer (Figure 1A, #104, 108 and 112) and a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator (Figure 1A, #104, at the end near the split in the adhesive layer). Tsubaki et al. further disclose a double-sided tape for attaching an electronic component to a housing of an electronic device (Figures; Abstract; A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Tsubaki et al. is designed to be attached to adhered, which could include an electronic component.), the double- sided tape including at least one cut extending from an outer peripheral edge to an inner portion of the double-sided tape in a plan view of the double-sided tape (Figures; Paragraphs 0038 and 0039) and the double-sided tape has an adhesive layer and a separator attached to the adhesive layer (Abstract) and a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator (Abstract; Figures, wherein the tape may have a cut anywhere in the surface of the tape).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Mag et al. does have a cut at a peeling start position of a separator.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mag clearly discloses a part of the cut at the outer peripheral edge is a peeling start position of the separator (Figure 1A, #104, at the end near the split in the adhesive layer). There is no set location that the peeling start as to be at beyond the cut in the in the adhesive. The user may chose to remove the separator at the point. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Tsubaki does not have any separator.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsubaki clearly discloses the use of a separator, which is the same as a release liner (Abstract).
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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 December 12, 2025