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 .
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 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.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits following applicant’s response to a restriction/election requirement mailed on 23 December 2025. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 January 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (product claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 04 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings received on 09 January 2024 are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 19/262,410. The claims filed on 08 July 2025 were considered for analysis. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘410 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer. The melt softening layer includes a tackifying resin, see claim 6. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 8. The softening layer containing a tackifying resin reads on the claimed adhesive agent layer A. Claim 11 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes detachable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, claim 6 recites that the melt softening layer includes a tackifying resin, reading on both a hot melt adhesive and a pressure-sensitive adhesive as claimed.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 1 of the ‘410 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer. The melt softening layer includes a tackifying resin, see claim 6. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 8. Claim 11 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes detachable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
The adhesive layer reads on layer a1, the melt softening layer which includes a tackifying resin reads on layer a2.
Claim 9 of the ‘410 application recites that the heating element has projecting portions projecting from the outer periphery of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and the melt-softening layer. Thus a planar arrangement of the layers is implied.
Regarding claim 6, the tape laminate structure of the ‘410 application reads on the claimed arrangement.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/262,435. The claims filed on 08 July 2025 were considered for analysis. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘435 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer. An additional adhesive layer is positioned on the other side of the melt-softening layer from the surface adjacent to the heating element, see claim 8. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 50 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 2. Claim 9 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes detachable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 specifies a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 6 recites that the electrically conductive filler of the heating element may be carbon.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 1 of the ‘435 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer. An additional adhesive layer is positioned on the other side of the melt-softening layer from the surface adjacent to the heating element, see claim 8. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 50 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 2. Claim 9 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes detachable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
The adhesive layer reads on layer a1, the adhesive layer next to the melt softening layer reads on layer a2.
Claim 7 of the ‘435 application recites that the heating element has projecting portions projecting from the outer periphery of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and the melt-softening layer. Thus a planar arrangement of the layers is implied.
Regarding claim 6, the tape laminate structure of the ‘435 application reads on the claimed arrangement.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/758,285. The claims filed on 12 June 2026 were considered for analysis. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘285 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer adjacent to the heating element. An additional adhesive layer is positioned on the other side of the melt-softening layer from the surface adjacent to the heating element, see claim 12. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 10. Claim 13 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes peelable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 specifies a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 1 of the ‘285 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer adjacent to the heating element. An additional adhesive layer is positioned on the other side of the melt-softening layer from the surface adjacent to the heating element, see claim 12. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 10. Claim 13 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes peelable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
The adhesive layer reads on layer a1, the adhesive layer next to the melt softening layer reads on layer a2.
Claim 1 of the ‘285 application recites that the heating element has projecting portions projecting from the outer periphery of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and the melt-softening layer in a plan view. Thus a planar arrangement of the layers is implied.
Regarding claim 6, the tape laminate structure of the ‘285 application reads on the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 7, claims 8 and 9 of the ‘285 application recites that the loss tangent of a component constituting the melt-softening layer and of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is 0.8 or greater at a temperature of 80°C or higher.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/758,227. The claims filed on 14 April 2026 were considered for analysis. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘227 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer adjacent to the heating element. An additional adhesive layer is positioned on the other side of the melt-softening layer from the surface adjacent to the heating element, see claim 12. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 10. Claim 13 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes peelable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 specifies a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 1 of the ‘227 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape (reading on a sticky tape) comprising an adhesive layer and a heating element and a melt-softening layer adjacent to the heating element. An additional adhesive layer is positioned on the other side of the melt-softening layer from the surface adjacent to the heating element, see claim 12. The heating element has a volume resistivity at 20°C of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 10. Claim 13 recites that the melt-softening layer becomes peelable upon heating, reading on being separable as claimed.
The adhesive layer reads on layer a1, the adhesive layer next to the melt softening layer reads on layer a2.
Claim 1 of the ‘227 application recites that the heating element has projecting portions projecting from the outer periphery of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and the melt-softening layer in a plan view. Thus a planar arrangement of the layers is implied.
Regarding claim 6, the tape laminate structure of the ‘227 application reads on the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 7, claims 8 and 9 of the ‘227 application recites that the loss tangent of a component constituting the melt-softening layer and of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is 0.8 or greater at a temperature of 80°C or higher.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Pat. 12,595,398. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 7 of the ‘398 patent recites a sticky tape separable by heating having adhesive agent layers B1 and B2 formed on either side of an intermediate layer A which comprises a planar heating element and adhesive agent layers disposed on either side of the heating element. The intermediate layer is softened or melting by heating, see claim 11.
The heating element has a volume resistivity of 30 μΩ∙cm or more, see claim 5.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 specifies a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 3, claim 6 of the ‘398 patent recites these materials for the heating element.
Regarding claim 4, claims 1 and 7 of the ‘398 patent recites a sticky tape separable by heating having adhesive agent layers B1 and B2 formed on either side of an intermediate layer A which comprises a planar heating element and adhesive agent layers disposed on either side of the heating element. The intermediate layer is softened or melting by heating, see claim 11.
Regarding claim 6, claim 10 recites that the intermediate layer A is composed of a single layer containing the heating element and the adhesive agent.
Regarding claim 7, claim 12 recites that the loss tangent of an adhesive agent is 0.45 or more in a temperature range of 80°C or more and 200°C or less.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim notes that the adhesive agent layer A is melted or softened “to be separable”. It is unclear what material layer A separates from. After heating, is layer A separable from the heating element? Is layer A separable from an attached adherend not specified in the claim? Clarity is needed.
Claim 4 similarly recites that at least one of adhesive agent layer a1 and a2 is melted or softened “to be separable”. After heating, are layer a1 and/or a2 separable from the heating element? Are they separable from an attached adherend not specified in the claim? Clarity is needed.
Claims 2-7 depend on or refer to one or more of the above claims and thus incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016/108394 A. Applicant’s provided translation of JP ‘394 was relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘394 describes a double-sided adhesive tape which can be adhered between two components and easily dismantled by heating, see paragraphs [0008] and [0015]. FIG. 2(a) and (b) of the original document are representative.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in FIG. 2 and described at paragraph [0017], adhesive layers 20 and 21 are formed on either side of heat conductive layer 10.
The heat conductive layer is described at paragraph [0037] and is formed of a material such a graphite. Graphite (carbon) is one of the materials specified in claim 3 and thus is presumed to inherently have a volume resistivity within the range specified in claim 1.
The adhesive layer is formed preferably of a thermoplastic resin, specifically a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer, see paragraphs [0024] and [0026]. This reads on an adhesive agent which is melted or softened by resistance heating.
Regarding claim 2, Paragraph [0008] specifies a double-sided pressure-sensitive adhesive tape.
Regarding claim 3, The heat conductive layer is described at paragraph [0037] and is formed of a material such a graphite. Graphite (carbon) is one of the materials specified in claim 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as shown in FIG. 2 reproduced above, the laminate adhesive sheet of JP ‘394 is planar shaped and includes adhesive layers 20 and 21 formed on either side of the heating element 10. Furthermore, the heating element 10 includes a pair of extended portions E and F which extend from the outer periphery of the adhesive agent layers.
Regarding claim 6, The laminate structure shown in FIG. 2 and also in FIG. 7 of JP ‘394 reads on the claimed structure, as the adhesive layers 20 and 21 surround heating element 10 effectively forming a single layer.
Regarding claim 7, JP ‘394 does not specify the temperature of the adhesive agent at which a loss tangent is 0.45 or more. However, as JP ‘394 describes the same structure and materials as claimed, it is expected that the adhesive layers of JP ‘394 exhibit a loss tangent within the claimed range.
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamanaka (U.S. Pub. 2013/0081764) teaches a heat-expandable removable pressure sensitive adhesive tape which includes multiple adhesive layers and a peelable or peel-assisting layer. The peelable or peel-assisting layer includes a nichrome resistance heating element. The tape has a sheet (planar) shape. The reference is cumulative.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights