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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 29, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms “DOWSIL”, “SYL-OFF” is noted throughout the specification, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce. These terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner respectfully submits that applicant should recite conditions (peel angle and peel speed) under which the peel strengths were measured in order to better characterize the claimed invention. See paragraph 0052 of US Patent Application Publication 20250121601 A1 of the present application, which recites peel speed of 300 mm/min and peel angle of 90°.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 8 recite “adhesive base materials” and “adhesive base material” respectively. It is unclear from the specification what is encompassed by the recitation adhesive base material(s). For example, it is not clear whether “adhesive base material” means main polymer used in the formation of each adhesive layer or all of the ingredients that form each adhesive layer. For purpose of examination, if prior art discloses adhesive substance used in the formation of adhesive layer, then it will be interpreted to read on “adhesive material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 2, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 20180134921 A1).
As to claim 1, Nakamura teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) sheet that can be used for temporary fixing and/or re-adherence for confirming an adhering position with an adherend (removable tape) (0002 and 0034). Further, the PSA sheet of Nakamura comprises a sheet base material 11 (Figure 1, 0028) formed of e.g. polyethylene terephthalate (polymeric backing film) (0033), a first PSA layer 12 disposed on one surface of the sheet base material 11 (Figure 1, 0028), and a second PSA layer 13 provided on the first PSA layer 12 (0028, Figure 1).
Further, as to claim 1, Nakamura teaches that first PSA layer 12 is formed of a first platinum cured silicone PSA (0036, 0037, 0072) and the second PSA layer is formed of a second platinum cured silicone PSA (0037, 0044, and 00072).
Further, as to claim 1 limitation of the first adhesive strength and the second adhesive strength, Nakamura does not explicitly mention “first adhesive strength” and “second adhesive strength”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an adhesive layer inherently has adhesive strength. Furthermore, given that Nakamura teaches identical pt-cured silicone adhesives layers as claimed, it is clear that each silicone PSA layer of Nakamura has adhesive strength.
As to claim 1 limitation “A removable tape configured for sealing the nozzle plate of an ejection head attached to a fluid ejection cartridge” and “the second platinum-curded adhesive layer is configured to adhere to the nozzle plate on the ejection head of the fluid ejection cartridge”, these limitations are deemed to be an intended use in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. Given that the PSA sheet of Nakamura as set forth above is identical to that of the presently claimed in terms of structure and composition, it meets the intended use of the claimed PSA sheet (i.e. the PSA sheet of Nakamura can be used for sealing the nozzle plate of an ejection head attached to a fluid ejection cartridge and the second platinum-curded adhesive layer can adhere to the nozzle plate on the ejection head of the fluid ejection cartridge).
As to claim 2, Nakamura teaches PET as a sheet base material (0033).
As to claims 6 and 8, Nakamura teaches that the first silicone based PSA and the second silicone based PSA are formed of the same substance or different substances from each other (0038).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura et al. (US 20180134921 A1).
Nakamura as set forth previously teaches claimed invention except for the properties of the adhesive strength and peel adhesive strength recited in claims 5, 7, and 9. However, it is submitted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Nakamura as set forth previously discloses identical first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer as claimed. Further, as set forth previously, Nakamura discloses that the first silicone based PSA and the second silicone based PSA are formed of the same substance or different substances from each other. Accordingly, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned properties are inherently present in the PSA sheet of Nakamura. Alternatively, the aforementioned properties would obviously be present once the PSA sheet of Nakamura is provided.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20180134921 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claimed thickness of the polymeric backing film, Nakamura discloses that the sheet base material has a thickness of 12 µm or more and 350 µm or less (0034). The claimed thickness range of about 20 to 30 microns overlaps or lie within the range disclosed by Nakamura such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the thickness of the backing film as claimed as rendered obvious by Nakamura, motivated by the desire to provide suitable strength and flexibility to the polymeric backing film.
As to the claimed thickness of the first pt-cured silicone adhesive layer, Nakamura teaches that the first PSA layer has a thickness of 20 µm (0042).
As to the claimed thickness of the second pt-cured silicone adhesive layer, Nakamura teaches that the second PSA layer has a thickness of 20 µm (0053).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 20180134921 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niwa et al. (US 20210115308 A1).
Nakamura is silent as to disclosing claim 4.
Niwa discloses an adhesive tape comprising a base 1, a first adhesive layer 2 on the base 1, and a second adhesive region 3 (second adhesive layer) in contact with the first adhesive layer 2 (Figure 1, 0026). Niwa further discloses that the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are formed of silicone based adhesive (0043) such as pt cured silicone adhesive (0056). Moreover, Niwa discloses that the base includes resin film base such as polyolefin films and PET films (0033). Further, Niwa discloses that the base is subjected to corona treatment (0033).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a corona-treated backing film of Niwa in the invention of Nakamura, motivated by the desire to enhance adhesion between the polymeric backing film and an adhesive layer (first adhesive layer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dryer et al. (US 10987935 B1) discloses fluidic ejection cartridge and protective tape (abstract).
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
December 26, 2025