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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes a figure and does not consist of a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what the Applicant is claiming as it is unclear, and undefined, what is surface roughness (Ra).
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what the Applicant is claiming as it is unclear, and undefined, what is surface roughness (Rz).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed adhesive layer, claim 1 recites the broad recitation Ra is from 0.2 to 1.5 mm, and the claim also recites Ra is from 0.4 to 1.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed adhesive layer, claim 1 recites the broad recitation Rz is from 2.0 to 15.0 mm, and the claim also recites Rz is from 3.0 to 10.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed adhesive layer, claim 1 recites the broad recitation Rz/Ra is from 3.0 to 30.0 mm, and the claim also recites Rz/Ra is from 5.0 to 20.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed substrate layer, claim 2 recites the broad recitation Ra is from 0.2 to 1.5 mm, and the claim also recites Ra is from 0.4 to 1.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed substrate layer, claim 2 recites the broad recitation Rz is from 2.0 to 15.0 mm, and the claim also recites Rz is from 3.0 to 10.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed substrate layer, claim 2 recites the broad recitation Rz/Ra is from 3.0 to 30.0 mm, and the claim also recites Rz/Ra is from 5.0 to 20.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed release layer, claim 3 recites the broad recitation Ra is from 0.2 to 1.5 mm, and the claim also recites Ra is from 0.4 to 1.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed release layer, claim 3 recites the broad recitation Rz is from 2.0 to 15.0 mm, and the claim also recites Rz is from 3.0 to 10.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for the claimed release layer, claim 3 recites the broad recitation Rz/Ra is from 3.0 to 30.0 mm, and the claim also recites Rz/Ra is from 5.0 to 20.0 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what it being claimed, and not being claimed, with respect to the “alignment bonding”. In addition, the claim language, FIG. 3 and the paragraph bridging pages 27-28 only demonstrates a single adhesive tape (presumably the presently claimed adhesive sheet) and not the “two pieces of the adhesive sheet” presently recited.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what it being claimed, and not being claimed, with respect to the “alignment bonding” as it is unclear from said claim limitations and said specification which side of the recited adhesive sheet (adhesive layer surface or the substrate layer surface) experiences the separation of 80 mm or less. FIG. 3 illustrates an adhesive tape (presumably the presently claimed adhesive sheet), but does not individually designate and differentiate between the adhesive layer and the substrate layer.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side of the adhesive layer with a bonding area of 20 mm x 100 mm" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a the side of the adhesive layer with a bonding area of 20 mm x 100 mm has not been previously introduced.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the alignment bonding region" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as an alignment bonding region has not been previously introduced.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is intended by an adhesive layer having a weight-average molecular weight as opposed to its individual components (e.g., a polymer).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of 100,000 or less, and the claim also recites a Mw of 80,000 or less and the claim also recites a Mw of 50,000 or less the latter of which are progressively the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what is intended by a “gel rate” and the units applied thereto are in percent and not units designating a rate (such as a time frame). In addition, there is no indication as to what the percentage values apply (e.g., % by volume).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of a storage modulus of 80.0 × 104 Pa to 300.0 × 104 Pa, and the claim also recites a storage modulus of 120.0 × 104 Pa to 250.0 × 104 Pa which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of a loss modulus of 120.0 × 104 Pa to 450.0 × 104 Pa, and the claim also recites a loss modulus of 200.0 × 104 Pa to 350.0 × 104 Pa which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of a storage modulus of 8.5 × 104 Pa to 20.0 × 104 Pa, and the claim also recites a storage modulus of 9.0 × 104 Pa to 15.0 × 104 Pa which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of a loss modulus of 5.0 × 104 Pa to 13.0 × 104 Pa, and the claim also recites a loss modulus of 6.0 × 104 Pa to 11.0 × 104 Pa which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation of a base polymer without its proportions, and the claim also recites the base polymer at 100 parts by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation of a tackifying resin without its proportions, and the claim also recites the tackifying resin at 30 to 50 parts by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation of a crosslinking agent without its proportions, and the claim also recites the crosslinking at 1 to 5 parts by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation of a viscous monomer at 70 to 95 parts by weight, and the claim also recites the viscous monomer at 80 to 90 parts by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation of a polar monomer at 5 to 30 parts by weight, and the claim also recites the polar monomer at 10 to 20 parts by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation of a copolymerizable monomer at 1 to 5 parts by weight, and the claim also recites the copolymerizable monomer at 2 to 4 parts by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what is intended by the recitation of a low softening point tackifying resin having at least one of said low softening point tackifying resin selected from a moderate softening point tackifying resin and a high softening point tackifying resin.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagami et al. (JP 2016151006 A). The Examiner notes that citations from the ‘006 reference were taken from a machine translation, which is included with the current action.
Regarding claim(s) 1, Yamagami teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) sheet comprising a support (1) or (A), PSA layers (2,3) or (B) on opposite sides of support (1) and release liners (4,5) on the outer surfaces of PSA layers (2,3) (para 0015; 0195; figure 1), wherein at least one of PSA layers (B) comprises PSA layer (b) having a center line average surface roughness (Ra) of 0.2 to 0.5 mm and a ten-point average surface roughness (Rz) of 7 to 10 mm towards the removal of air bubbles between the PSA layer (b) and an adherend (para 0013, 0018, 0040-0041). The Examiner notes that the ratio (Rz)/(Ra) ranges from 14 to 50, which overlaps that presently claimed (3.0 to 30.0 mm or 5.0 to 20.0 mm).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date pf the present invention to adjust the (Ra) and (Rz) values towards providing the adhesive layer (b) with the presently claimed (Rz/Ra) ratio based on the degree air bubble prevention between the PSA layer (b) and an adherend as required by the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 2, Yamagami teaches that support (A) has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.1 mm or more, which overlaps that presently claimed, towards imparting the surface roughness to the adhesive layer (b) (para 0035).
While Yamagami is silent to the presently claimed (Rz) and (Rz/Ra) values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date pf the present invention to the (Ra), (Rz) and (Rz/Ra) values based on the resultant (Ra), (Rz) and (Rz/Ra) of PSA layer (b) towards the degree air bubble prevention between the PSA layer (b) and an adherend as required by the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 3, Yamagami teaches that the release liner has a (Ra) of 0.2 to 0.4 mm (para 0088).
Regarding claims 4-5, (Yamagami teaches that the adhesion strength (peel adhesive force) to a stainless steel plate after one (1) hour at 23 ℃ and 50% RH and peeling at 180° ranges from 1.5 to 7.0 N/20 mm, which overlaps that presently claimed; and that the adhesion strength (peel adhesive force) to a stainless steel plate after 24 hours at 23 ℃ and 50% RH and peeling at 180° ranges from 2.0 to 7.5 N/20 mm, which overlaps that presently claimed (para 0183-0186; and Examples 1-10 of Tables 1-2 of the original Yamagami document).
While the presently claimed invention recites the peel adhesive force after 0.5 hours rather than Yamagami’s one (1) hour, Yamagami instructs one skilled in the art towards the means for adjusting the adhesive strength such as, inter alia, minimizing air bubble formation, PSA thickness, acrylic polymer monomer selection and gel fraction (para 0014, 0020, 0039-0041, 0046, 0054, 0059).
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust the one or more of the above-noted PSA layer’s parameters for the intended application since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) towards the PSA layer of Yamagami demonstrating the presently claimed peel adhesive force based on the adhesion and temperature of use required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 6, Yamagami teaches that the PSA sheet has an adhesive holding strength of 2 mm or less after 24 hours (para 0023-0024).
While the presently claimed invention recites alignment bonding under variant test conditions, as noted above, Yamagami instructs one skilled in the art towards the means for adjusting the adhesive strength such as, inter alia, minimizing air bubble formation, PSA thickness, acrylic polymer monomer selection and gel fraction (para 0014, 0020, 0039-0041, 0046, 0054, 0059).
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust the one or more of the above-noted PSA layer’s parameters for the intended application since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) towards the PSA layer of Yamagami demonstrating the presently alignment bonding (adhesive holding strength) based on the adhesion duration and temperature of use required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 8, Yamagami teaches that the PSA layer has a gel fraction of 10 to 60 % by mass, which overlaps that presently claimed, towards maintaining the (Ra) value (para 0046).
Regarding claims 11-13, Yamagami teaches that the PSA layer (b) is an acrylic PSA (para 0055-) comprising an acrylic polymer (base polymer) comprising (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester such as, inter alia, butyl acrylate (viscous monomer, alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms), and other monomers such as, inter alia, (meth)acrylic acid (copolymerizable carboxyl group-containing monomer) and, inter alia, styrene (polar monomer) (para 0055-0061).
Yamagami also teaches that the PSA layer (b) comprises a tackifier towards tensile strength selected from, inter alia, terpene-based tackifying resins (0069-0070); and a crosslinking agent towards adjusting the gel fraction (para 0075).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagami et al. (JP 2016151006 A) in view of Wada et al. (US 2010/0178500 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamagami is silent to the acrylic polymer of the PSA layer having an Mw of 300,000 to 1,200,000 further having a soluble portion (i.e., solvent-soluble portion) of 100,00 or less, Wada instructs one skilled in the art that the solvent-soluble fraction is adjusted via the amount of the functional group-containing monomer(s) and the types and amounts of crosslinking agent (para 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust the proportions of the functional group-containing monomers (e.g., the (meth)acrylic acid) and/or the crosslinkers of the PSA layer of Yamagami based on the Mw of the acrylic polymer to remain in said PSA layer following removal of the solvent as in the present invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagami et al. (JP 2016151006 A) in view of Soerens et al. (US 2006/0142445 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Yamagami teaches a peak temperature of the loss tangent of the PSA layer, and determining the loss tangent (Tan d = (G”)/(G’)) of the PSA layer, but does not appear to disclose the storage modulus (G’) or the loss modulus (G”) (para 0043-0044 and 0170-0171).
However, Soerens instructs the skilled artisan that the storage modulus (G’) describes the elastic character of an adhesive, and is relevant to its performance properties such as shear resistance and bonding/debonding behaviors’ while the loss modulus describes an adhesive’s viscous response, and is relevant to its processing characteristics like viscosity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust the storage and loss moduli of the PSA layer of Yamagami to that presently claimed based on the balance of the performance and properties required of PSA layer’s application and temperature of use as in the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 PM.
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 A 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 10/16/2025