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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 11, and 12, and Species B (claim 12) in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no undue burden in search and examination of inventions of Groups I-III. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather subject to lack of unity practice, see MPEP 1893.03(d). It is noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in lack of unity analysis. The test is whether or not special technical features can be established. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I and III do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth on pages 3-5 of the previous Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 17, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are 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.
As to claim 1, this claim at line 4 recites “the adhesive layer”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. The aforementioned recitation is interpreted as “the at least one adhesive layer”.
As to claim 2, this claim recites “the pressure-sensitive adhesive”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. The aforementioned recitation is interpreted as “the syntactically foamed pressure-sensitive adhesive”.
As to claim 4, this claim at lines 2 and 3 recites “the pressure-sensitive adhesive”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. The aforementioned recitation is interpreted as “the syntactically foamed pressure-sensitive adhesive”. Further, claim 4 recites “poly(meth)acrylate”. It is unclear whether the poly(meth)acrylate is additional polymer or further refers to “poly(meth)acrylates” in claim 1. It is submitted that “poly(meth)acrylate” should be replaced with “poly(meth)acrylates”.
As to claim 5, this claim recites “the pressure-sensitive adhesive”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. The aforementioned recitation is interpreted as “the syntactically foamed pressure-sensitive adhesive”.
Further, as to claim 5, this claim recites “the plastic”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. The aforementioned recitation is interpreted as “the syntactically foamed plastic”.
As to claim 6, it is unclear from the specification and claim what is meant by the recitation “degree of foaming” and “at start temperature of the microballoons”. Further, it is unclear how the degree of foaming of the pressure-sensitive adhesive and/or of the plastic was measured. For purpose of examination, if prior art discloses claimed pressure-sensitive adhesive and/or plastic, it will meet the claim.
As to claim 12, this claim recites “synthetic rubber as a main constituent”. It is unclear whether this synthetic rubber is additional rubber or further refers to “synthetic rubbers” recited in claim 1. Further, it is unclear what is meant by the recitation “main constituent”, because claim does not set forth any amount of the synthetic rubber. Further, this claim recites “the tackifier resin”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. The aforementioned recitation is interpreted as “the at least one tackifier resin”.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burmeister et al. (US 20140323604 A1).
As to claim 1, Burmeister teaches a double-sided self-adhesive tape (multilayer adhesive tape) comprising a carrier layer formed of syntactically foamed plastic (0062, 0001, 0002, 0004, 0043, 0044). Further, the syntactically foamed plastic of Burmeister comprises expanded microballoons (0037). Further, Burmeister teaches at least one layer of self-adhesive disposed on the carrier layer (0062) and comprises syntactically foamed pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) (0002, 0004, 0043, 0044, and 0051). Further, Burmeister teaches that the syntactically foamed PSA comprises polyacrylate and synthetic rubbers (0019), and expanded microballoons (0037).
As to claim 2, Burmeister teaches tackifier (0081).
AS to claim 3, Burmeister teaches that the syntactically foamed plastic comprises polyacrylate and synthetic rubbers (0019).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burmeister et al. (US 20140323604 A1).
Burmeister as set forth previously teaches claimed invention except for the properties recited in claims 6 and 7. However, it is submitted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Burmeister as set forth previously discloses at least one adhesive layer and the carrier layer as claimed. Accordingly, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned properties are inherently present in the multilayer adhesive tape of Burmeister. Alternatively, the aforementioned properties would obviously be present once the multilayer adhesive tape of Burmeister is provided.
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 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burmeister et al. (US 20140323604 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schubert et al. (US 20190112508 A1).
Burmeister is silent as to disclosing claims 4, 5, and 12.
Schubert discloses a PSA based on vinylaromatic block copolymers (synthetic rubber) that has higher ageing stability and can be used for PSA products having high thermal stability (0024). Further, the PSA of Schubert is foamed with microballoons (0033).
As to claim 4, Schubert discloses that the PSA contains 35 wt% to 65 wt% of vinylaromatic block copolymer (0081-0082). The claimed range of synthetic rubber of 40% or more overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Schubert such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a PSA comprising synthetic rubbers with a mass fraction as claimed and as rendered obvious by Schubert, motivated by the desire to form a PSA having high ageing stability and high thermal stability.
As to claim 5, Schubert discloses from 0.25 wt% to 5 wt% of microballoons in the adhesive in order to provide the adhesive with good balance between adhesion and cohesion (0102).
It would have been obvious to provide a PSA adhesive having the claimed amount of expanded microballoons as disclosed by Schubert, motivated by the desire to form a PSA having good balance between adhesion and cohesion.
As to claim 12, Schubert as set forth previously discloses synthetic rubber as main constituent of the PSA. Further, Schubert discloses that the adhesive includes 34.6 wt% to 45 wt% of tackifying resin (0081), which is within the claimed mass fraction range of 10 to 70%.
It would have been obvious to provide PSA adhesive having the claimed amount of tackifier resin as disclosed by Schubert, motivated by the desire to form a PSA having desired tack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR10-2020-0117626 discloses adhesive tape comprising foamed polyethylene substrate and a first and second acrylic adhesive layers that are foamed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/ANISH P DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 January 3, 2026