RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status
Amendments to claims 1 and 10, filed on 16 February 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending, of which claim 14 remains withdrawn from consideration as described on page 3 of the Office Action mailed on 07 January 2026.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-10 as over EP 4,108,453 A1 made of record on page 4, paragraph 10 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 16 February 2026. In particular, EP ‘453 does not disclose an embodiment in which one layer of the adhesive composition does not include the electrolyte as claimed in amended claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 11 as over EP 4,108,453 A1 in view of JP 2022-094761 A made of record on page 6, paragraph 11 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 16 February 2026. In particular, JP ‘761 does not remedy the above-described deficiency of EP ‘453.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 13 and 15-20 as over EP 4,108,453 A1 in view of WO ‘055 made of record on page 7, paragraph 12 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 16 February 2026. In particular, WO ‘055 does not remedy the above-described deficiency of EP ‘453.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 21 as over EP 4,108,453 A1 in view of Niwa (U.S. Pub. 2014/0044915) made of record on page 11, paragraph 13 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 16 February 2026. In particular, Niwa does not remedy the above-described deficiency of EP ‘453.
NEW REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/054480 A1. Kuroda (U.S. Pub. 2024/0409787) was relied upon as the English translation of WO ‘480.
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda discloses a double-sided adhesive sheet which is electrically debondable, see p. 1, [0009]. FIG. 2, reproduced below, is an example structure of the adhesive sheet described at p. 15, [0247] in which layer 2 is a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, conduction substrate 5 includes substrate layer 3 and conductive layer 4, and the electrically debondable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 1. Electrically debondable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 1 reads on first adhesive layer (D), Layer 5 reads on carrier layer (T), and the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 2 reads on second layer of adhesive (C) as claimed. The pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include a conductive filler such as silver or copper metal powder, see p. 13, [0221].
Electrically debondable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 1 includes a polymer, an ionic liquid, and a tackifier, see p. 2, [0042]. The ionic liquid is further described at p. 6, [0112] and reads on the claimed electrolyte in layer (D).
Notably, the pressure-sensitive adhesive layers 1 and 2 may be different, as the sheet must include at least one electrically debondable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer but may also include a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer containing no ionic liquid, see p. 14-15, [0244]. Thus, layer 2 of Kuroda, which is not described to be an electrically debonding adhesive layer at p. 15, [0247], is an adhesive layer containing no ionic liquid. This reads on layer (C) not containing an electrolyte as claimed.
As shown in FIG. 2, the layers are shown to be coextensive and thus none of the layers laterally protrude over the other.
PNG
media_image1.png
282
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to have included the metal powder conductive filler in one or both of the adhesive layers of Kuroda as such conductive fillers are described at p. 13, [0221], to impart electrical conductivity to the adhesive composition.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 15, and 16, the ionic liquid of Kuroda includes an anion selected from Br-, AlCl4-, Al2Cl7-, NO3-, BF4-, or others noted at p. 6, [0113]. Note: some of these anions are disclosed as cations, e.g., AlCl4+, however this appears to be a typographical error.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, suitable cations for the ionic liquid include imidazolium cations (see p. 6, [0114-0115]) or pyridinium cations (see p. 6, [0116]) or pyrrolidinium cations (see p. 6 [0117]) or ammonium cations (see p. 6, [0118]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Kuroda teaches that the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anion or bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide anion are the most preferable anions, and a cation with a molecular weight of 160 or less is particularly preferable, such as 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium. See p. 6-7, [0119]. Thus it would have been obvious to have used 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide or 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide as the ionic liquid as these are among the most preferable cations and anions.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Kuroda teaches that the polymer of the pressure-sensitive adhesive is preferably an acrylic polymer, see p. 3, [0056-0057]. This reads on a poly(meth)acrylate-based adhesive.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Kuroda teaches that the amount of ionic liquid in the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition is from 0.5 to 30 parts by mass and preferably 1.5 parts by mass to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polymer. This overlaps the claimed weight percentage range. See p. 8, [0129].
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, Kuroda teaches that the substrate layer 5 includes a conductive metal foil layer 4 which may be aluminum, iron, copper, tin, or silver, see p. 15, [0249].
Regarding claim 13, Kuroda teaches applying the adhesive tape to a conductive adherend on the side attached to the electrically debondable adhesive layer 1, see p. 17-18, [0278], and an additional adherend adhered to the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 2, see p. 18, [0279].
In another example, Kuroda describes a single-sided adhesive sheet which is applied to an adherend such that the adhesive sheet protrudes from the adherend by about 2 mm, see p. 19, [0310]. It would have been obvious to have applied a double-sided adhesive sheet to an adherend so that the adhesive sheet protrudes from the adherend in a similar manner. See also FIG. 4.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/054480 A1 in view of JP 2022-094761 A. Kuroda (U.S. Pub. 2024/0409787) was relied upon as the English translation of WO ‘480 and applicant’s provided machine translation of JP ‘761 was relied upon for analysis, page numbers refer to the translation
Regarding claim 11, Kuroda is relied upon as described above to disclose the limitations of claim 1. However, Kuroda does not teach or suggest that one or both of the adhesive layers is foamed by microballoons with a surface layer of silicate or aluminosilicate as claimed.
JP ‘761 describes a foamed adhesive tape for electronic devices which includes microballoons used for the foaming agent, see abstract and paragraphs [0002] and [0008]. The microballoons combined with the adhesive and silicone composite filler provide high adhesive strength and impact resistance. See paragraph [0032]. The microballoons have either an organic shell of resin or an inorganic shell such as borosilicate glass, see paragraph [0038]. This reads on a silicate surface layer as claimed.
JP ‘761 and Kuroda are analogous as they each disclose acrylic-based adhesive tapes used with electronic devices. It would have been obvious to have used a foamed adhesive made with a foaming agent having a silicate-containing surface layer as used in JP ’761 as the foamed adhesive provides impact resistance as disclosed in JP ‘761.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/054480 A1 as applied above, and further in view of Niwa (U.S. Pub. 2014/0044915). Kuroda (U.S. Pub. 2024/0409787) was relied upon as the English translation of WO ‘480.
Regarding claim 21, Kuroda teaches that the electrically debondable pressure-sensitive adhesive is an acrylic polymer, see p. 3, [0056-0057] reading on poly(meth)acrylates, and further includes an ionic liquid and a tackifier resin, see p. 2, [0042]. The adhesive may also include polyethylene glycol for the purpose of facilitating movement of the ionic liquid when voltage is applied, see p. 13, [0220]. No other polymer need be present in this adhesive composition.
The ionic liquid may be 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide as the ionic liquid as these are among the most preferable cations and anions, see p. 6-7, [0119]. The amount of ionic liquid is from 0.5 to 30 parts by mass and preferably 1.5 parts by mass to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polymer. This overlaps the claimed weight percentage range. See p. 8, [0129].
The thickness of the electrically debondable pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 1 is most preferably from 30-50 microns but may be from 1-1000 microns or more preferable subranges therein, see p. 15-16, [0253]. This overlaps the claimed range.
The above reads on layer (D) as claimed.
Kuroda teaches that the substrate layer 5 includes a conductive metal foil layer 4 which may be aluminum, see p. 15, [0249]. It would have been obvious to have selected aluminum as the foil as this is one of the specified suitable metal foil materials.
Kuroda further teaches that adhesive layer 2, which does not include the ionic liquid as described at p. 14-15, [0244], may be from 1-2000 microns and most preferably from 8-100 microns, see p.16, [0255], which overlaps the claimed thickness range for layer (C). As this adhesive does not include an ionic liquid, there is no need for polyethylene glycol as a facilitating agent, and thus it is presumed that none is present. Cf. p. 13, [0220]. A tackfier resin may be present, see p. 2, [0042].
The pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may include a conductive filler such as silver or copper metal powder, but is not limited to these materials, see p. 13, [0221]. The content of conductive filler is from 0.1 to 200 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the adhesive polymer, see id. However, Kuroda does not specify using from 5-40 wt. % of nickel metal particles as claimed.
However, Niwa also discloses a double sided acrylic based adhesive sheet for electronic devices. See p. 1, [0002]. The adhesive is acrylic based, see p. 2, [0023]. Niwa teaches that metal powders such as nickel may be included in the adhesive composition, see p. 6, [0080]. The amount of additives is from 1 to 90 parts by mass, see p. 6, [0085]. Furthermore, Niwa does not require the use of polyethylene glycol in the acrylic adhesive composition. This reads on adhesive layer (C).
Niwa and Kuroda are analogous as they each describe acrylic based double sided adhesive sheets for electronic devices.
It would have been obvious to have used the acrylic adhesive composition of Niwa including the nickel particles in the adhesive of Kuroda to arrive at the claimed adhesive tape as this confers electrical conductivity to the adhesive layer. There is a reasonable expectation of success as nickel is a commonly used conductive metal powder filler and thus is expected to be substituted for silver or copper powder in the adhesive composition of Kuroda.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 16 February 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-10 of record over EP ‘453 and of claim 11 over EP ‘453 in view of JP ‘761 and of claim 21 over EP ‘453 in view of Niwa have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 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