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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 18 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that method claim 17 is now dependent on product claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the grounds of restriction in the restriction requirement mailed 26 August 2025 still apply, i.e. the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as one in which the laminate is not separated. The examiner agrees rejoinder should be considered when claim 1 is found to be in condition for allowance since method claim 17 is a method of using the product of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (US 2012/0034407 A1) in view of Krawinkel (US 2015/0337177 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka teaches a laminate comprising (i) a first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 12, the first layer comprising a rubber based pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA; Figure 2; paragraph 30), (ii) a metal layer 14 disposed on the first layer 12 (Figure 2; paragraphs 21 and 191-192; Examples 7-9), (iii) a blowing agent layer 11 disposed on the metal layer (Figure 2; paragraph 16, 74 and 144-150), and (iv) a second PSA layer 12 disposed on the blowing agent layer, the first layer comprising a rubber based PSA (Figure 2; paragraph 30).
Yamanaka differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Yamanaka does not teach the first and second PSA layers comprise a block copolymer containing at least one polymer block formed from vinylaromatics and at least one polymer block formed from alkenes.
(i) As noted above, Yamanaka teaches the first and second PSA layers may comprise rubber based PSA, but does not recite specific compositions. Yamanaka is drawn to applications including automobiles and electrical appliances (paragraphs 3 and 242). In related art of PSA compositions for electrical devices, Krawinkel suggests a rubber based PSA layer comprising a block copolymer containing a vinylaromatic polymer block, for example formed from styrene, and an alkene polymer block, for example formed from butadiene (paragraphs 6 and 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Yamanaka because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable rubber based PSA composition as the rubber based PSA layers in Yamanaka, as suggested by the teachings of Krawinkel.
Regarding claim 2, Krawinkel was relied upon above for the PSA layers. The elastomer component is satisfied by the styrene butadiene block copolymers suggested by Krawinkel, such block copolymers being elastomeric (paragraphs 34-38). Alternatively, Krawinkel explicitly recites an additional elastomer component (paragraph 58). Krawinkel also teaches the additional tackifier resin (paragraph 49). While claim 2 only optionally recites a plasticizing resin, a plasticizing resin is also taught by Krawinkel (paragraph 51).
Regarding claims 3-6, Krawinkel was relied upon above for the PSA layers. Krawinkel clearly teaches these additional limitations of the suggested PSA layers (paragraphs 34-37).
Regarding claim 7, Krawinkel was relied upon above for the PSA layers. Krawinkel teaches the A blocks may have a fraction of 10 to 35 wt% (paragraph 39). Since the block copolymer may have only A and B blocks, this suggests the B blocks may have a fraction of 65 to 90 wt%. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8-9, Yamanaka teaches a thickness of the PSA layers of 100 to 1500 µm (paragraph 141). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Krawinkel was relied upon above for the PSA layers. The PSA composition of Krawinkel clearly has this additional property (paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 11, Yamanaka teaches the metal layer may comprise aluminum or copper (Paragraph 192; Examples 7-9).
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka clearly teaches this additional limitation (paragraphs 166-171).
Regarding claim 14, Yamanaka clearly suggests the additional first and second substrates wherein the laminate is disposed between the first and second substrates (paragraphs 3-4, 74, 269 and 312-315). Naturally a double sided tape laminate used to join part substrate is placed therebetween. The examples also suggest a PET film substrate joined to an adherend substrate with the laminate therebetween.
Claims 15-16 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record is applied above. In combination with the claimed limitations, there is no teaching or suggestion to provide the additional limitation of claim 13. The blowing agent layer of Yamanaka includes an acrylic PSA and there is no teaching or suggestion to provide at least 50 wt% of a thermoplastic polyurethane in this layer.
Kiuchi (US 2002/0192463 A1), Aizawa (US 5441810) and Husemann (WO 2006/042782 A1, attached machine translation) are cited of interest in the art of art of adhesive sheets with blowing agent layers for facilitating separation. These references also do not teach or suggest the above noted allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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 A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745