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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 7-9, 18-23, 25-27 and 29-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 is dependent to claim 24, which has been canceled.
The elements from claim 24 were amended into claim 23.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 31 will be examined as being dependent to claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 23, 25 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Tritsch (US4063559A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
23. An adhesive article, comprising: a backing layer defining a plurality of cuts; and an adhesive disposed on the backing layer, wherein the adhesive comprises a gel adhesive or a pressure sensitive adhesive, wherein the backing layer is configured to transition from an unstressed state toward a stressed state to transition the cuts to gaps and expose the adhesive through the gaps, thereby permitting adhesion of the adhesive to a substrate; and wherein the backing layer is configured to transition from the stressed state toward the unstressed state to shrink the size of the gaps to aid in the release of the adhesive article from the substrate.
With respect to claim 23, the prior art of Tritsch teaches an adhesive article (Figs. 2 & 3, item 16), comprising: a backing layer (Figs. 2 & 3, item 40) defining a plurality of slits (Fig. 2, items 42 on top surface of item 40), or cuts; and an adhesive (Fig. 3, items 34, 36) disposed on the backing layer, wherein the adhesive comprises a gel adhesive or a pressure sensitive adhesive [Col. 3, lines 56-57]. Tritsch teaches the backing layer is configured to transition from an unstressed state toward a stressed state [Col. 4, lines 15-25; Col. 5, lines 5-50] to transition the cuts to gaps (Fig. 3, items 44 on top surface of item 40) and expose the adhesive through the gaps, thereby permitting adhesion of the adhesive to a substrate [Col. 4, lines 15-25]. Tritsch teaches the backing layer is configured to transition from the stressed state toward the unstressed state to shrink the size of the gaps to aid in the release of the adhesive article from the substrate [Col. 2, lines 39-46; Col. 5, lines 26-50].
25. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the plurality of cuts is arrayed in a pattern along one axis.
With respect to claim 25, in one embodiment, Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts can be arrayed in a pattern along one axis (Fig. 6, item 250; [Col. 4, lines 47-59]).
26. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the plurality of cuts is arrayed in more than one axis.
With respect to claim 26, Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts can be arrayed in more than one axis (Fig. 1, items 42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29, 31 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tritsch (US4063559A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
29. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the adhesive article further comprises a second backing layer defining a second plurality of cuts, wherein the second plurality of cuts comprises a second cut that exhibits a second length and a second width, and wherein a ratio of the second length to the second width is greater than 1000.
With respect to claim 29, Tritsch teaches a backing web (Fig. 1, item 28) which is connected to the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. The backing web exposes no adhesive as it comprises no slits, and forms the outer surface of a diaper tab (See Fig. 4, item 16) when the tab is adhered to close the diaper.
Tritsch is silent on a second backing layer on the opposite side of the adhesive layer from the first backing layer.
However, if there was motivation for the adhesive tab of Tritsch to have adhesiveness on both sides for a diaper embodiment (e.g., to hold down an outer diaper flap, or to hold down an infant’s shirt), or for use with another type of article (similar to a “Command strip” to hold a picture on a wall), it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of a backing layer having slits that expanded and exposed the adhesive layer for both sides of the adhesive layer, to duplicate the first backing layer onto the opposite side of the adhesive layer.
This would predictably result in a second backing layer with a first major surface and a second major surface, wherein the second major surface of the second backing layer is in contact with the first major surface of the adhesive layer, and wherein the second backing layer comprises a plurality of cuts.
For each of the two backing layers, as set forth in the rejection of claim 23, when the adhesive article is transitioned from an unstressed state to a stressed state, at least some of the cuts become gaps that permit adhesion of the layer of adhesive to a substrate surface.
The duplication of the backing layer would be a prima facie obvious modification to make if adhesiveness on both sides of a strip was desired for an application; no unexpected result would be anticipated by providing controllable adhesiveness to both sides of the elastic strip. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts comprises a cut that exhibits a length and a width, and wherein a ratio of the length to the width is greater than 1000.
Tritsch teaches slit comprises a length and width; the length can range from 3-10mm [0012].
Tritsch is silent on the width or the l/w ratio of the slits.
However, Tritsch teaches “the protective cover can be a web which is provided with discontinuous slits which form discrete apertures when extended; an embossed web which preferentially ruptures in localized regions and forms an open network structure when extended; or a unitary web which is provided with spaced, weakened regions, such as score lines, which rupture when the web is extended. In all cases a portion of the pressure-sensitive adhesive coating is exposed when the protective cover is extended” [Col. 2, lines 20-29].
From these Tritsch teachings of ‘weakened regions, such as score lines, that preferentially rupture’, and the adhesive coating being ‘exposed when the protective cover is extended’, it can be inferred that Tritsch teaches the slits made in the protective cover do not expose the adhesive layer with the adhesive article in the unstressed state, meaning the unstretched slits have essentially no width.
This would prima facie obviously result in the slits having a l/w ratio of >1000 or indefinite.
31. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the adhesive article is transitioned from the unstressed state to the stressed state by applying tension to the adhesive article in a first direction, and wherein the adhesive article is removable from the substrate by applying tension to the adhesive article in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
With respect to claim 31, Tritsch teaches the adhesive article is transitioned from the unstressed state to the stressed state by applying tension to the adhesive article in a first direction (See Fig. 1 to Fig. 3; [Col. 3, line 67 – Col. 4, line 5]). Tritsch teach that the adhesive article can be removed from the substrate as needed and reapplied [Col. 2, lines 39-46].
Tritsch is silent on applying tension to the adhesive article in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction to remove the adhesive article from the substrate surface.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing, and commonly known to a person who has repositioned a diaper adhesive tab, to pull the tab away from the baby (in a direction that is orthogonal to the stretching of the tab) to release the pressure sensitive adhesive tab from the diaper substrate.
33. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the plurality of cuts comprises a cut that exhibits a length and a width, and wherein a ratio of the length to the width is greater than 1000.
With respect to claim 33, Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts comprises a cut that exhibits a length and a width, and wherein a ratio of the length to the width is greater than 1000.
Tritsch teaches slit comprises a length and width; the length can range from 3-10mm [0012].
Tritsch is silent on the width or the l/w ratio of the slits.
However, Tritsch teaches “the protective cover can be a web which is provided with discontinuous slits which form discrete apertures when extended; an embossed web which preferentially ruptures in localized regions and forms an open network structure when extended; or a unitary web which is provided with spaced, weakened regions, such as score lines, which rupture when the web is extended. In all cases a portion of the pressure-sensitive adhesive coating is exposed when the protective cover is extended” [Col. 2, lines 20-29].
From these Tritsch teachings of ‘weakened regions, such as score lines, that preferentially rupture’, and the adhesive coating being ‘exposed when the protective cover is extended’, it can be inferred that Tritsch teaches the slits made in the protective cover do not expose the adhesive layer with the adhesive article in the unstressed state, meaning the unstretched slits have essentially no width.
This would prima facie obviously result in the slits having a l/w ratio of >1000 or indefinite.
Claims 1, 7-9, 22, 30, 32 & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tritsch (US4063559A), in view of Hancock-Cooke (US2008291792A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. An adhesive article comprising: a layer of adhesive with a first major surface and a second major surface, wherein the adhesive comprises a gel adhesive or a pressure sensitive adhesive; and a first backing layer with a first major surface and a second major surface, wherein the first major surface of the first backing layer is in contact with the second major surface of the adhesive layer, wherein the first backing layer comprises a plurality of cuts, wherein the adhesive article is configured to transition back and forth between an unstressed state and a stressed state, wherein, when the adhesive article is transitioned from the unstressed state toward the stressed state, at least some of the cuts become gaps that permit adhesion of the second major surface of the adhesive layer to a substrate surface, and wherein the plurality of cuts includes: a first row of cuts including a first cut and a second cut offset from the first cut to define a gap therebetween; and a second row of cuts offset from the first row of cuts and including a third cut aligned with the gap.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Tritsch teaches an adhesive article (Figs. 2 & 3, item 16) comprising: a layer of adhesive (Fig. 3, items 34, 36) with a first major surface (Fig. 2, bottom surface of items 34, 36) and a second major surface (Fig. 2, top surface of items 34, 36), wherein the adhesive comprises a gel adhesive or a pressure sensitive adhesive [Col. 3, lines 56-57]; and a first backing layer (Figs. 2 & 3, item 40) with a first major surface (Fig. 2, bottom surface of item 40) and a second major surface (Fig. 2, top surface of item 40), wherein the first major surface of the first backing layer is in contact with the second major surface of the adhesive layer [Col. 3, line 63 – Col. 4, line 5], wherein the first backing layer comprises a plurality of slits (Fig. 2, items 42 on top surface of item 40), or cuts, wherein the adhesive article is configured to transition back and forth between an unstressed state and a stressed state [Col. 4, lines 15-25; Col. 5, lines 5-50], and wherein, when the adhesive article is transitioned from the unstressed state toward the stressed state, at least some of the cuts, become apertures (Fig. 3, items 44 on top surface of item 40), or gaps, that permit adhesion of the second major surface of the adhesive layer to a substrate surface [Col. 4, lines 15-25].
Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts includes: a first row of cuts including a first cut and a second cut offset from the first cut to define a gap therebetween; and a second row of cuts offset from the first row of cuts (Fig. 1, vertical cut items 42).
Tritsch is silent on the plurality of cuts including: the second row of cuts including a third cut aligned with the gap between the cuts in the first row.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Hancock-Cooke similarly teaches a stretchable stack of layers comprising a cover layer (Fig. 5, item 102) secured over a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (Fig. 5, item 100; [0081-0082]); with embodiments wherein the slits (Figs. 5-8, item 104) in the cover layer can either be configured in linearly-aligned rows (e.g., Fig. 6; [0012, 0074]), or the slits contained in one column can be offset to the slits contained in an adjacent column (Fig. 7, items 104; [0012, 0074]); and stretched into openings (Fig. 8, item 106) to expose the underlying adhesive [0077].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the cover layer slit configuration of offset placement of slits from row to row, taught by Hancock-Cooke, in place of the cover layer slit configuration embodiment of Tritsch, which has aligned rows of multiple slits. The modified adhesive article of Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, would predictably result in an offset row-to-row slit configuration for the cover layer of the article taught by Tritsch. Hancock-Cooke teaches both slit configuration embodiments [0012, 0074], but does not teach an advantage of one over the other; the motivation to change embodiment type may be desired aesthetics.
7. The adhesive article of claim 1, wherein the stressed state comprises stretching, bending or a combination thereof.
With respect to claim 7, Tritsch teaches the stressed state comprises stretching [Claim 2].
8. The adhesive article of claim 1, further comprising a second backing layer with a first major surface and a second major surface, wherein the second major surface of the second backing layer is in contact with the first major surface of the adhesive layer, and wherein the second backing layer comprises a plurality of cuts, wherein, when the adhesive article is transitioned from an unstressed state to a stressed state, at least some of the cuts become gaps that permit adhesion of the layer of adhesive to a substrate surface.
With respect to claim 8, Tritsch teaches a backing web (Fig. 1, item 28) which is connected to the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. The backing web exposes no adhesive as it comprises no slits, and forms the outer surface of a diaper tab (See Fig. 4, item 16) when the tab is adhered to close the diaper.
Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, is silent on a second backing layer on the opposite side of the adhesive layer from the first backing layer.
However, if there was motivation for the adhesive tab of Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, to have adhesiveness on both sides for a diaper embodiment (e.g., to hold down an outer diaper flap, or to hold down an infant’s shirt), or for use with another type of article (similar to a “Command strip” to hold a picture on a wall), it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of a backing layer having slits that expanded and exposed the adhesive layer for both sides of the adhesive layer, to duplicate the first backing layer onto the opposite side of the adhesive layer.
This would predictably result in a second backing layer with a first major surface and a second major surface, wherein the second major surface of the second backing layer is in contact with the first major surface of the adhesive layer, and wherein the second backing layer comprises a plurality of cuts.
For each of the two backing layers, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, when the adhesive article is transitioned from an unstressed state to a stressed state, at least some of the cuts become gaps that permit adhesion of the layer of adhesive to a substrate surface.
The duplication of the backing layer would be a prima facie obvious modification to make if adhesiveness on both sides of a strip was desired for an application; no unexpected result would be anticipated by providing controllable adhesiveness to both sides of the elastic strip. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
9. The adhesive article of claim 8, wherein the first backing layer and the second backing layer comprise the same material.
With respect to claim 9, It would have been prima facie obvious that the first backing layer and the second backing layer could be selected to comprise the same material if the backing layers were duplicate layers.
22. The adhesive article of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cuts comprises a cut that exhibits a length and a width, and wherein a ratio of the length to the width is greater than 1000.
With respect to claim 22, Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts comprises a cut that exhibits a length and a width, and wherein a ratio of the length to the width is greater than 1000.
Tritsch teaches slit comprises a length and width; the length can range from 3-10mm [0012].
Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, is silent on the width or the l/w ratio of the slits.
However, Tritsch teaches “the protective cover can be a web which is provided with discontinuous slits which form discrete apertures when extended; an embossed web which preferentially ruptures in localized regions and forms an open network structure when extended; or a unitary web which is provided with spaced, weakened regions, such as score lines, which rupture when the web is extended. In all cases a portion of the pressure-sensitive adhesive coating is exposed when the protective cover is extended” [Col. 2, lines 20-29].
From these Tritsch teachings of ‘weakened regions, such as score lines, that preferentially rupture’, and the adhesive coating being ‘exposed when the protective cover is extended’, it can be inferred that Tritsch teaches the slits made in the protective cover do not expose the adhesive layer with the adhesive article in the unstressed state, meaning the unstretched slits have essentially no width.
This would prima facie obviously result in the slits having a l/w ratio of >1000 or indefinite.
30. The adhesive article of claim 1, wherein the adhesive article is transitioned from the unstressed state to the stressed state by applying tension to the adhesive article in a first direction, and wherein the adhesive article is removable from the substrate surface by applying tension to the adhesive article in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
With respect to claim 30, Tritsch teaches the adhesive article is transitioned from the unstressed state to the stressed state by applying tension to the adhesive article in a first direction (See Fig. 1 to Fig. 3; [Col. 3, line 67 – Col. 4, line 5]). Tritsch teach that the adhesive article can be removed from the substrate as needed and reapplied [Col. 2, lines 39-46].
Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, is silent on applying tension to the adhesive article in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction to remove the adhesive article from the substrate surface.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing, and commonly known to a person who has repositioned a diaper adhesive tab, to pull the tab away from the baby (in a direction that is orthogonal to the stretching of the tab) to release the pressure sensitive adhesive tab from the diaper substrate.
32. The adhesive article of claim 1, wherein, when the adhesive article is transitioned from the stressed state to the unstressed state, at least some of the gaps shrink to aid in removal of the adhesive article from the substrate surface.
With respect to claim 32, Tritsch teaches when the adhesive article is transitioned from the stressed state to the unstressed state, the gaps shrink to aid in removal of the adhesive article from the substrate surface, and elastically return to slit form to cover up the adhesive coating for reuse [Col. 5, lines 32-50].
34. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the cut is a first cut and the plurality of cuts includes: a first row of cuts including the first cut and a second cut offset from the first cut to define a gap therebetween; and a second row of cuts offset from the first row of cuts and including a third cut aligned with the gap.
With respect to claim 34, Tritsch teaches the plurality of cuts includes: a first row of cuts including a first cut and a second cut offset from the first cut to define a gap therebetween; and a second row of cuts offset from the first row of cuts (Fig. 1, vertical cut items 42).
Tritsch is silent on the plurality of cuts including: the second row of cuts including a third cut aligned with the gap between the cuts in the first row.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Hancock-Cooke similarly teaches a stretchable stack of layers comprising a cover layer (Fig. 5, item 102) secured over a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (Fig. 5, item 100; [0081-0082]); with embodiments wherein the slits (Figs. 5-8, item 104) in the cover layer can either be configured in linearly-aligned rows (e.g., Fig. 6; [0012, 0074]), or the slits contained in one column can be offset to the slits contained in an adjacent column (Fig. 7, items 104; [0012, 0074]); and stretched into openings (Fig. 8, item 106) to expose the underlying adhesive [0077].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the cover layer slit configuration of offset placement of slits from row to row, taught by Hancock-Cooke, in place of the cover layer slit configuration embodiment of Tritsch, which has aligned rows of multiple slits. The modified adhesive article of Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, would predictably result in an offset row-to-row slit configuration for the cover layer of the article taught by Tritsch. Hancock-Cooke teaches both slit configuration embodiments [0012, 0074], but does not teach an advantage of one over the other; the motivation to change embodiment type may be desired aesthetics.
Claims 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tritsch (US4063559A), in view of Hancock-Cooke (US2008291792A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1 and 23, respectively, and further in view of Miller (US20100084084A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
5. The adhesive article of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a multi-layer adhesive, wherein the multi-layer adhesive comprises at least 2 adhesive layers, a first adhesive layer comprising the first major surface of the adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer comprising the second major surface of the adhesive layer, and wherein the first and second adhesive layers are the same or different.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, the prior art of Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, teaches an adhesive layer.
Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, is silent on the adhesive layer comprising a multi-layer adhesive, wherein the multi-layer adhesive comprises at least two adhesive layers, a first adhesive layer comprising the first major surface of the adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer comprising the second major surface of the adhesive layer, and wherein the first and second adhesive layers are the same or different.
However, the prior art of Miller teaches forming a multilayer adhesive laminate (Figs. 2B & 2F, item 285) comprising two layers of the same adhesive material (Fig. 2B, items 240, 296) between a backing layer (Fig. 2F, item 250) and a release layer (Fig. 2F, item 297; [0038]). Miller teaches an advantage of a multilayer adhesive versus a single layer adhesive is to achieve doubling the thickness from the starting adhesive layer to the overall adhesive layer thickness of the product, if so desired [0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique, taught by Miller, of doubling the thickness of an adhesive layer stack onto a backing strip, to increase the thickness of the adhesive, taught by Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, in the same way. The modification for the article Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke and Miller, could double the thickness of the overall adhesive layer, if it were so desired for the adhesive laminate product.
27. The adhesive article of claim 23, wherein the adhesive comprises a multi-layer adhesive.
With respect to claim 27, as set forth in the rejection of claim 23, Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, teaches an adhesive layer.
Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, is silent on the adhesive layer comprising a multi-layer adhesive.
However, the prior art of Miller teaches forming a multilayer adhesive laminate (Figs. 2B & 2F, item 285) comprising two layers of the same adhesive material (Fig. 2B, items 240, 296) between a backing layer (Fig. 2F, item 250) and a release layer (Fig. 2F, item 297; [0038]). Miller teaches an advantage of a multilayer adhesive versus a single layer adhesive is to achieve doubling the thickness from the starting adhesive layer to the overall adhesive layer thickness of the product, if desired [0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique, taught by Miller, of doubling the thickness of an adhesive layer stack onto a backing strip, to increase the adhesive thickness, taught by Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke, in the same way. The modification for the article of Tritsch, in view of Hancock-Cooke and Miller, would double the thickness of the overall adhesive layer, if it were so desired for the adhesive laminate product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748