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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-14, and 16-21 are currently pending with claim 15 being cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are rejected.
All of the rejections over have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0345367 to Eckhardt et al. (hereinafter “Eckhardt”) in view of US 2004/0033362 to Mino (hereinafter “Mino”).
As to claims 1 and 2, Eckhardt discloses a multilayer pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) foam tape comprising: a PSA polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer, and a second PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraph 215). The first and second PSA skin layers are non-foamed layers due to the absence of the foaming agent (table 5).
Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer consists of 100 parts by weight of polyacrylate resin, 4 parts by weight of expandable microspheres and 5 parts by weight of activated carbon (table 6). The expandable microsphere reads on the claimed a density-reducing solid filler. The polyacrylate resin of the foam layer is either non-crosslinked or crosslinked (paragraphs 78 and 79).
Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer comprises 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate monomer, and acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a free radical functional group (X) (table 6). Eckhardt further teaches that crosslinking is initiated by UV radiation or ionizing radiation; Hence, the use of separate crosslinking agent is optional (paragraph 85).
Indeed, the polymeric foam layer includes a crosslinking additive comprising a multifunctional methacrylate compound selected from the group consisting of 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and a combination thereof (paragraph 84). The multifunctional methacrylate compound reads on the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (X). Further, the crosslinking additive comprises para-acryloxyethoxybenzophenone (paragraph 84) corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (Z).
As indicated in the paragraphs 179-182, Eckhardt discloses that the first or second PSA comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a tackifier, 3-25 wt% of a (meth) acrylate polymer, based on the total weight of the PSA. The linear block copolymer has a formula M-(G)p wherein M is a rubbery block; each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer and p is 1 or 2 (abstract). The polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer can be vinyl pyridine or vinyl toluene monomer (paragraph 112) and each of which being different than styrene monomer. Therefore, the first and second PSA layers do not contain polystyrene copolymers.
Eckhardt does not explicitly disclose the polymer base material having a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) no greater than 500,000 g/mol.
Mino, however, discloses a crosslinked foamed PSA comprising an acrylate copolymer having a Mw of at least 100,000 g/mol, having excellent stress relaxing property, restoration property and solvent resistance (abstract). The Mw overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the molecular weight of the acrylate copolymer of the polymer foam layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the molecular weight is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer base material disclosed in Eckhardt having a Mw of at least 100,000 g/mol disclosed in Mino motivated by the desire to provide a polymeric foam layer excellent in stress relaxing property, restoration property and solvent resistance.
As to claims 4, 5 and 19, Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer comprises expandable microspheres (table 6).
As to claim 6, Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer consists of 100 parts by weight of polyacrylate resin, 4 parts by weight of expandable microspheres and 5 parts by weight of activated carbon (table 6). The (meth)acrylate copolymer is present in an amount of 91.7 wt% based on the weight of the polymeric foam layer.
As to claims 7-13, 20 and 21, Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer comprises 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate monomer, and acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (X) (table 6). Eckhardt also teaches that the polymeric foam layer includes a crosslinking additive comprising a multifunctional methacrylate compound selected from the group consisting of 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and a combination thereof (paragraph 84). The 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate or trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate monomer reads on the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (Z). Further, the crosslinking additive comprises para-acryloxyethoxybenzophenone (paragraph 84) corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (Z).
As to claim 14, Eckhardt discloses the foam tape exhibiting a VOC content of less than 500 ppm, or a FOG content of less than 600 ppm, according to Test Method VDA278 (paragraphs 209 and 210).
Claims 3, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckhardt in view of Mino and US 2015/0030839 to Satrijo et al. (hereinafter “Satrijo”).
Eckhardt discloses a multilayer pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) foam tape comprising: a PSA polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer, and a second PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraph 215). The first and second PSA skin layers are non-foamed layers in the absence of the foaming agent (table 5).
Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer consists of 100 parts by weight of polyacrylate resin, 4 parts by weight of expandable microspheres and 5 parts by weight of activated carbon (table 6). The expandable microsphere reads on the claimed a density-reducing solid filler. The polyacrylate resin of the foam layer is either non-crosslinked or crosslinked (paragraphs 78 and 79).
Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer comprises 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate monomer, and acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (X) (table 6). Eckhardt also teaches that crosslinking is initiated by UV radiation or ionizing radiation; Hence, the use of separate crosslinking agent is optional (paragraph 85). Indeed, the polymeric foam layer includes a crosslinking additive comprising a multifunctional methacrylate compound selected from the group consisting of 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and a combination thereof (paragraph 84). The multifunctional methacrylate compound reads on the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (Z). Further, the crosslinking additive comprises para-acryloxyethoxybenzophenone (paragraph 84) corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (Z).
As indicated in the paragraphs 179-182, Eckhardt discloses that the first or the second PSA layer comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a tackifier, 3-25 wt% of a (meth) acrylate polymer, based on the total weight of the PSA. The linear block copolymer has a formula M-(G)p wherein M is a rubbery block; each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer and p is 1 or 2 (abstract). The polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer can be vinyl pyridine or vinyl toluene monomer (paragraph 112) and each of which being different than styrene momomer. Therefore, the first and second PSA layers do not contain polystyrene copolymers. The first and second PSA skin layers are non-foamed layers due to the absence of the foaming agent (table 5).
Eckhardt does not explicitly disclose the polymeric foam layer comprising (i) a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) no greater than 500,000g/mol, and (ii) a tackifier.
Mino, however, discloses a crosslinked foamed PSA comprising an acrylate copolymer having a Mw of at least 100,000 g/mol, having excellent stress relaxing property, restoration property and solvent resistance (abstract). The Mw overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the molecular weight of the acrylate copolymer of the polymer foam layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the molecular weight is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer base material disclosed in Eckhardt having a Mw of at least 100,000 g/mol disclosed in Mino motivated by the desire to provide a polymeric foam layer excellent in stress relaxing property, restoration property and solvent resistance.
Satrijo, however, discloses a multilayer PSA foam tape comprising: a PSA polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer, and a second PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer (paragraph 61). The PSA foam layer comprises 94 parts by weight of 2EHA, 6 parts by weight of AA, and 0.15 parts by weight of photoinitiator per 100 parts of total monomers (phr), 0.4 phr of an antioxidant, and 0.006 phr 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (paragraph 106). The PSA foam layer also contains expandable microspheres (paragraph 44), a tackifier (paragraph 46), and activated carbon (paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tackifier from Satrijo in the polymeric foam layer disclosed in Eckhardt/Mino motivated by the desire to enhance adhesion properties.
As to claim 16, Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer comprises expandable microspheres (table 6).
As to claims 17 and 18, Eckhardt discloses that the polymeric foam layer comprises 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate monomer, and acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (X) (table 6).
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Eckhardt does not suggest the claimed invention because the phrase “consisting of” is sufficient to exclude a separate crosslinking agent as a required component of the foamed PSA.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Eckhardt discloses that the crosslinking is initiated by UV radiation or ionizing radiation; Hence, the use of separate crosslinking agent is optional (paragraph 85).
As shown in table 6, the polymeric foam layer comprises 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate monomer, and acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (X). Eckhardt further teaches that the polymeric foam layer includes a crosslinking additive comprising a multifunctional methacrylate compound selected from the group consisting of 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and a combination thereof (paragraph 84). The multifunctional methacrylate compound reads on the claimed acrylate monomer comprising a reactive functional group (X). Further, the crosslinking additive comprises para-acryloxyethoxybenzophenone (paragraph 84) corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (Z).
Applicant states that the Mino crosslinked foamed PSA having excellent stress relaxing property, and restoration property is obtained by heating a tacky polymer having a molecular weight of at least 100,000, a heat crosslinking agent and a heat foaming agent. Mino fails to teach the claimed multilayer PSA foam tape where the PSA polymeric foam layer does not include a separate crosslinking agent.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Eckhardt discloses that the crosslinking is initiated by UV radiation or ionizing radiation; Hence, the use of separate crosslinking agent in the PSA polymeric foam layer is optional (paragraph 85). Indeed, the polymeric foam layer includes a crosslinking additive comprising a multifunctional methacrylate compound selected from the group consisting of 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate and a combination thereof (paragraph 84). Further, the crosslinking additive comprises para-acryloxyethoxybenzophenone (paragraph 84). The Eckhardt crosslinking additive and the Mino crosslinking agent are functionally the same. They both promote crosslinking of the polymers when exposed to UV radiation or ionizing radiation. Therefore, it is expected that when the resulting tacky polymer of Eckhardt/Mino having a molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol containing a crosslinking additive; and a foaming agent are exposed to heat, both crosslinking and foaming will occur. The combined teachings of Eckhardt and Mino result in a PSA foam layer containing no separate crosslinking agents.
Applicant also asserts that the molecular weight range set forth in Mino does not support the overlapping-ranges rationale in the Office Action. The molecular weight can be from 100,000 to 2,000,000 g/mol, which does not invite optimization toward the claimed upper limit of no greater than 500,000 g/mol.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the molecular weight of the acrylate copolymer of the polymer foam layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the molecular weight is critical or provides unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Applicant asserts that Eckhardt fails to disclose the first and second PSA layers which do not contain polystyrene copolymers.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As indicated in the paragraphs 179-182, Eckhardt discloses that the first or second PSA comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a tackifier, 3-25 wt% of a (meth) acrylate polymer, based on the total weight of the PSA. The linear block copolymer has a formula M-(G)p wherein M is a rubbery block; each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer and p is 1 or 2 (abstract). The polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer can be vinyl pyridine or vinyl toluene (paragraph 112) and each of which being different than styrene. Therefore, the first and second PSA layers do not contain polystyrene copolymers. The first and second PSA skin layers are non-foamed layers due to the absence of the foaming agent (table 5).
Claims 1-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satrijo in view of Mino.
As to claims 1-3, Satrijo discloses a multilayer PSA foam tape comprising: a PSA polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer, and a second PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer (paragraph 61). The PSA skin layers are comprised of a 3M-9458 non-foamed acrylic adhesive film (paragraphs 96 and 111). The PSA skin layers are thus free of polystyrene copolymers.
The PSA foam layer comprises a styrenic block copolymer, an acrylate copolymer 1, expandable microspheres, a tackifier, and activated carbon (table 1, and paragraphs 57 and 106). The acrylate copolymer 1 contains acrylic monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (X). The PSA foam layer further includes a polymerizable photo crosslinker comprising a photoinitiator group; and a polymerizable, ethylenically unsaturated group wherein the photoinitiator group is benzophenone or thioxanthone while the polymerizable, ethylenically unsaturated group is a (meth) acryloyl (paragraphs 33 and 37). The polymerizable photo crosslinker reads on the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (Z).
The PSA skin layers are comprised of a 3M-9458 non-foamed acrylic adhesive film (paragraphs 96 and 111). Hence, the PSA skin layers are free of polystyrene copolymers.
Satrijo does not explicitly disclose the acrylate copolymer having a Mw of 500,000 g/mol or less.
Mino, however, discloses a crosslinked foamed PSA comprising an acrylate copolymer having a Mw of at least 100,000 g/mol, having excellent stress relaxing property, restoration property and solvent resistance (abstract). The Mw overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the molecular weight of the acrylate copolymer of the polymer foam layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a molecular weight is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer base material disclosed in Satrijo having a Mw of at least 100,000 g/mol disclosed in Mino motivated by the desire to provide a polymeric foam layer excellent in stress relaxing property, restoration property and solvent resistance.
As to claim 4, 5, 16 and 19, Satrijo discloses that the PSA foam comprises expandable microspheres (paragraph 44).
As to claim 6, Satrijo discloses that the PSA foam is a multilayer foam structure comprising a first foam layer and a second foam layer (paragraph 28). The first foam layer comprises a styrenic block copolymer and an acrylate copolymer (table 1) while the second foam layer is free of the styrenic block copolymers (paragraph 28).
As shown in table 1, the first foam layer comprises the acrylate copolymer and tackifier with their ratio of 1:1; and relatively small amounts of the additives compared to the acrylate copolymer and the tackifier. The second foam layer in the absence of the styrenic block copolymer, will have a content of the acrylate copolymer in the range of 40-50 wt% based on the total weight of a second foam layer prior to foaming. The examiner equates the second foam layer to the claimed polymeric foam layer.
As to claims 7-11, 17, 18, 20 and 21, Satrijo discloses that the PSA foam comprises 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate monomer, and acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (X) (paragraph 106). The PSA foam also includes a photo crosslinker comprising an acrylate monomer having benzophenone or thioxanthone corresponding to the claimed a reactive functional group (Z) (paragraphs 34-38).
As to claims 12 and 13, Satrijo discloses that the PSA foam contains a photo crosslinker monomer comprising an ethylenically unsaturated monomer containing benzophenone or thioxanthone, corresponding to the claimed monomer (iii) (paragraphs 34-38).
As to claim 14, Satrijo does not explicitly disclose the foam tape exhibiting a VOC content of less than 500 ppm, or a FOG content of less than 500 ppm, according to Test Method VDA278.
However, it appears that the foam tape of Satrijo in view of Mino meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The multilayer PSA foam tape comprises: a PSA polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer, and a second PSA skin layer adjacent the first major surface of the polymeric foam layer. The PSA foam layer contains expandable microspheres, a tackifier, and activated carbon. The PSA foam layer comprises a (meth)acylate ester monomer, an acrylic acid monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (X). The PSA foam layer further includes a photo crosslinker comprising an ethylenically unsaturated monomer containing benzophenone or thioxanthone corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (Z). The resulting acrylate copolymer has a Mw greater than 100,000 g/mol. The PSA skin layers are non-foamed layers free of polystyrene copolymers.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the VOC content of less than 500 ppm, or a FOG content of less than 500 ppm, according to Test Method VDA278 would be present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Satrijo in view of Mino fails to suggest the claimed invention because the phrase “consisting of” is sufficient to exclude a separate crosslinking agent as a required component of the resulting foamed PSA.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Satrijo’s PSA foam layer comprises a styrenic block copolymer, an acrylate copolymer 1, expandable microspheres, a tackifier, and activated carbon (table 1, and paragraphs 57 and 106). The acrylate copolymer 1 contains an acrylic monomer corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (X). The PSA foam layer further includes a polymerizable photo crosslinker comprising a photoinitiator group; and a polymerizable, ethylenically unsaturated monomer wherein the photoinitiator group is benzophenone or thioxanthone while the polymerizable, ethylenically unsaturated monomer is a (meth) acryloyl monomer (paragraphs 33 and 37). The polymerizable photo crosslinker reads on the claimed acrylate monomer having a reactive functional group (Z).
Mino’s crosslinked foamed PSA having excellent stress relaxing property, and restoration property is obtained by heating a tacky polymer having a molecular weight of at least 100,000, a heat crosslinking agent and a heat foaming agent.
The Satrijo’s polymerizable photo crosslinker and Mino’s crosslinking agent are functionally the same. They both promote crosslinking of the polymers when exposed to UV radiation or ionizing radiation. Therefore, it is expected that when the resulting tacky polymer of Satrijo/Mino having a molecular weight of 100,000 g/mol containing a polymerizable photo crosslinker; and a foaming agent are exposed to heat, both crosslinking and foaming will occur. The combined teachings of Satrijo and Mino result in a PSA foam layer containing no separate crosslinking agents.
Applicant also asserts that the molecular weight range set forth in Mino does not support the overlapping-ranges rationale in the Office Action. The molecular weight can be from 100,000 to 2,000,000 g/mol, which does not invite optimization toward the claimed upper limit of no greater than 500,000 g/mol.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the molecular weight of the acrylate copolymer of the polymer foam layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the molecular weight is critical or provides unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Applicant asserts that Satrijo fails to disclose the first and second PSA layers which are non-foamed layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Satrijio discloses that the PSA skin layers are comprised of a 3M-9458 non-foamed acrylic adhesive film (paragraphs 96 and 111). Thus, the PSA skin layers are free of polystyrene copolymers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights