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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated October 16, 2025. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
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 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (EP 2 345 707 A) in view of Shirai et al. (USPGPub 2011/0070430 A1) and Ikemura et al. (JP 2021134274 A).
Shirai et al. (‘707) disclose a double-sided pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a substrate film having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Figure 1, #1; Paragraph 0059); a first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer disposed on the first surface and having a first adhesive surface opposite the substrate film (Figure 1, #3; Paragraph 0059) and formed from a water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition (Abstract); a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer formed from a coating film of a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition applied onto the second surface, the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer having a second adhesive surface opposite the substrate film (Figure 1, #3; Paragraph 0059); and a first release liner in releasable contact with the first adhesive surface (Figure 1, #4; Paragraph 0059); a second release liner in releasable contact with the second adhesive surface (Figure 1, #4; Paragraph 0059), wherein an emission amount of toluene and ethyl acetate from the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer on heating at 80℃ for 30 minutes is 10 μg/g or less (Paragraph 0065), as in claims 1, 3, and 4. With respect to claim 2, the first release liner has a thickness of 35 μm or more (Paragraph 0064). For claims 5 – 7, the substrate film includes an anchoring layer forming the first surface and/or an anchoring layer forming the second surface (Paragraphs 0025 – 0028). In claims 8 – 11, the substrate film has a thickness of 12 μm or less (Paragraphs 0019 – 0020). However, Shirai et al. (‘707) fail to disclose the second release liner is thinner than the first release liner, a blending ratio of the leveling agent to 100 parts by mass of the water-dispersible polymer is 0.1 parts by mass or more and 2 parts by mass or less, and wherein a ratio of the thickener in a solid content of the first water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition is 1% by mass or more and 3% by mass or less, the water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition contains a water- dispersible polymer, water, and a leveling agent, and the second release liner has a thickness of 25 μm or less.
Shirai et al. (‘430) teach a double-sided pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet (Figures 1 and 2; Abstract) comprising: a substrate film having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Figures 1 and 2, #10), the substrate film having a thickness of 12 μm or less (Paragraphs 0014, 0099, and 0105; a first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer disposed on the first surface, having a first adhesive surface opposite the substrate film, and formed from a first water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition (Figures 1 and 2, #22; Paragraphs 0035 - 0092), wherein the first water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition contains a water-dispersible polymer, water, and a leveling agent (Paragraph 0091); a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer disposed on the second surface, having a second adhesive surface opposite the substrate film, and formed from a second water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition (Figures 1 and 2, #21; Paragraphs 0035 - 0092); and a release liner in releasable contact with the first and second adhesive surfaces (Figures 1 and 2, #31 and 32), having a release liner in releasable contact with the adhesive surface, the release liner having a thickness of 25 μm or less (Figure 1, #32; Paragraphs 0036 and 0107), wherein the thickness of the release liner may be selected according to the purpose of the release liner (Paragraph 0107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was made to have two release liners with two different thicknesses, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Ikemura et al. teach a water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition (Abstract) containing a leveling agent (Page 4, lines 40 – 48) in a blending ratio of the leveling agent to 100 parts by mass of the water-dispersible polymer is 0.1 parts by mass or more and 2 parts by mass or less (Page 5, lines 9 – 25), and wherein a ratio of the thickener in a solid content of the first water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition is 1% by mass or more and 3% by mass or less (Page 5, lines 26 – 31) for the purpose of having a desired viscosity and surface tension (Page 5, lines 20 – 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a leveling agent in a blending ratio of the leveling agent to 100 parts by mass of the water-dispersible polymer is 0.1 parts by mass or more and 2 parts by mass or less in Shirai et al. (‘707) in order to have a desired viscosity and surface tension as taught by Ikemura et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Shirai ‘707 does not disclose that the water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive contains a thickener.”, and Shirai’430 discloses that the PSA composition includes a thickener, but does not disclose the content of the thickener.”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Ikemura does not teach or suggest setting the content of the leveling agent with respect to 100 parts by mass of the water-dispersible polymer to 0.1 parts by mass or more and 2 parts by mass or less, or setting the a ratio of the thickener in the solid content of the water-dispersed pressure-sensitive adhesive composition to 1% by mass or more and 3% by mass or less”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the specification of Ikemura, it is clearly stated that there is an overlap with the claimed invention of both the leveling agent and the thickener (Page 5, lines 9 – 31). The Examples on which the Applicant has relied upon is only a snapshot of what may be used. There is no requirement that the Examples cover every possible combination that is made from the claimed ranges of Ikemura.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the ratio of the thickener being 1% by mass or more ensures thickening of the water-dispersed pressure sensitive adhesive composition, and the ration being 3% by mass or less prevents excessive thickening”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the specification of Ikemura, it is clearly stated that there is an overlap with the claimed invention of both the leveling agent and the thickener (Page 5, lines 9 – 31). The Examples on which the Applicant has relied upon is only a snapshot of what may be used. There is no requirement that the Examples cover every possible combination that is made from the claimed ranges of Ikemura. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 October 31, 2025