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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-5, 7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak (WO 2021/142093 A1) [hereinafter referenced via US 2021/0206152 A1] in view of Mazurek et al. (US 2005/0153102 A1)
Regarding Claim 1 and 5, Nowak teaches a tear tape for packaging (Paragraph 0064-0066; Fig 17) comprising a paper substrate (Fig. 17, Item 38), and an adhesive layer arranged on at first side of the paper substrate. (Fig 17, Item 15). Nowak does not specifically teach the adhesive layer has an uneven surface with relative elevations and relative depressions at least in some regions.
Mazurek teaches a tape comprising a backing and a micro-structured adhesive layer. (Abstract; Fig. 4a-4c). Mazurek teaches the adhesive layer has a regular uneven surface structure with relative elevations and relative depressions, where the surface structure comprises a periodic structural element, truncated and non-truncated hemispheres, prisms, pyramids, ellipses and grooves, which would have at least on extension vector of the periodicity of the structural element is arranged obliquely to the main extension direction of the paper substrate. (Paragraph 0098, Fig. 7-9). Mazurek teaches the formation of this uneven surface structure on the adhesive layer allows for varying the performance properties of the tape and allowing the tape to be temporarily repositionable before forming a permeant bond with a substrate, which allows for correction of initial mistakes in applying the tape (Paragraph 0001, 0010, 0059). Thus, it would have been obvious to apply the claimed structure to the adhesive of Nowak as taught by Mazurek to allow the tape to be temporarily repositioned or adjust the bond strength of the tape through the formation of the uneven surface and structural elements of the adhesive layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Nowak teaches the entire paper tear tape, which includes the paper substrate, can be biodegradable. (Paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 3, Nowak teaches the paper substrate can be FIBER FORM white 3D Paper from BILLERUDKORSNAS AB (Paragraph 0051), a bleached paper.
Regarding Claim 4, Nowak teaches the adhesive layer is applied to the first side all over. (Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 7, Nowak teaches a separating strip arranged on a side of the adhesive layer facing away from the paper substrate. (Paragraph 0065)
Regarding Claim 17, Nowak also teaches the paper substrate has a basis weight of 50 to 250 gsm. (Paragraph 0067). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 18, Mazurek teaches the adhesive layer has a regular uneven surface structure with relative elevations and relative depressions, where the surface structure comprises a periodic structural element, truncated and non-truncated hemispheres, prisms, pyramids, ellipses and grooves. (Paragraph 0098; Fig 7-9).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak and Mazurek in view of DOW (NPL).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Nowak teaches a release coating layer is arranged all over the second side of the paper substrate. (Fig. 17, Item 39). Nowak teaches release coating layer can be a silicone material. (Paragraph 0070)
Nowak does not specifically teach the basis weight of the release coating layer.
DOW teaches apply SYL-OFF, a silicone, to be applied to paper substrates as a release coating. (Page 2, 4). Dow teaches the amount of silicone release coating should range from 0.3 to 1.3 gsm. (Page 4). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). DOW teaches SYL-OFF in this amount provides a non-migrating, good release, and a fast low temperature cure that leads to lower costs. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to use the silicone coating and the claimed amount of silicone coating taught by DOW in Nowak to ensure a release coating that non-migrating, cheaper to process, and offers premium release.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak and Mazurek in view of Alexander (NPL)
Regarding Claim 8, Nowak teaches the paper reinforced tear tape can be wound into rolls.
Nowak does not teach traverse winding onto a reel.
Alexander teaches rolling tape onto a teel using traverse winding allows for large amount of tape material to attached to reel while preventing the rolled material from being too large and difficult to handle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to roll the tape of Nowak onto a reel with traverse winding to yield a manageable roll with a large amount of tape.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak and Mazurek in view of Wengelski (NPL)
Regarding Claim 20, Nowak does not specifically teach the first side of the paper substrate has a smooth surface.
Wengelski teaches having a smooth surface of paper to apply adhesives provides benefits of reduced adhesive weight coats, as less surface texture needs to be filled, which reduces costs. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the have the first side of the paper in Nowak be smooth to reduce the amount of adhesive and reduce the cost of producing the tape.
Response to Arguments
New ground of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights