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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 10, in the reply filed on 5/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the apertures in the adhesive layer" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 – 10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected independent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being WO 2019217179 A1 by Lui et al. hereinafter “Lui”.
Lui is directed to adhesive tape and any type of plastic film coating with adhesive and more particularly to a stress tearable tape which can to easily cut user’s hand in a transverse direction [0003].
Regarding claim 1 – 6 and 10, Lui teaches a stress tearable tape comprising a core 11, pinholes 21, film 10, non-adhesive surface 101, pinhole bridging 22 that connects pin holes together, adhesive surface 102. See Fig 2. The pin holes are aligned up. The tearable tape can also comprise a protective film 33 (release liner) to removably overlap the adhesive surface see Fig 10. Lui teaches that the tearable tape is transparent [0057]. The pinholes can be made with a laser [0109]. The perforated backing layer (101 non-adhesive surface) can comprise biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) [0008, 0079, 0080]. The adhesive can comprise a water based acrylic adhesive (PSA) [0004].
As to claim 7, the pinholes are arranged in a pattern see at least Fig 2 or Fig 3a .
Regarding claim 8, the tape is torn in a crossweb direction. This is the direction perpendicular to the downweb direction or machine direction (the axis running parallel to the direction in which a continuous material is moving through a production line. See Fig 1.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019217179 A1 by Lui et al. hereinafter “Lui”.
For the limitations of the independent claim, refer to paragraphs 6 - 7 supra.
Regarding claim 9, Lui is silent as to any information on a moisture vapor transmission rate. However, Lui teaches highly perforated tapes at least at FIG 3A, 3B, and 3C. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to review FIG 3A, 3B, and 3C and to adjust the number of perforations per square inch to achieve the desired moisture vapor transmission rate.
Prior Art of Record
US 20080041524 A1 to McCarthy, Dillon P.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER A. SALAMON whose telephone number is 571-270-3018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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 at 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.
PAS 6/12/26
/PETER A SALAMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights