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 15 January 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 19 April 2024 and 06 September 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be unduly burdensome to search all claims. The traversal was not found persuasive because: as evidenced by the differences in classifications, a search of all claims would impose an additional serious burden on the office. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 11 March 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “The present invention relates to…”. Correction is recommended. See MPEP § 608.01(b), guideline (C).
The disclosure does not include the recommended section headings as described in 37 C.F.R. § 1.77(b). See also MPEP § 608.01(a). The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention.
Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
Drawings
No drawings are present in the application.
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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/899,030 in view of Kerep (U.S. Pub. 2015/0291855). The claims filed on 27 September 2024 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 13 of the ‘030 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive product comprising a layer of adhesive compound and a carrier material. Claim 1 specifies that the adhesive includes a) at least 28% to at most 60% by weight of an elastomer component, b) a tackifier resin, and d) optionally from 2.5% to 22 wt. % of a reinforcing component. Claim 8 further specifies that the amount of tackifier resin is from 28% to 55% by weight. These amounts overlap the amounts specified in claim 1, and further allow for the amount of elastomer and reinforcing component to be above 52 wt. % as claimed. Claim 5 also specifies that the reinforcing compound includes at least one resin with a weight average molecular weight Mw of 1000 g/mol to 15,000 g/mol. It would have been obvious to have combined these claimed features to formulate a self-adhesive tape within the scope of claim 1 of the present application.
Although the ‘030 application recites a carrier layer, it does not specify a monoaxially oriented polypropylene carrier layer.
However, Kerep describes the combination of an elastomeric adhesive and a monoaxially oriented polypropylene (MOPP) carrier film, see abstract and p. 3, [0064] and [0067]. It would have been obvious to have used a MOPP carrier with the adhesive as this provides the ideal cost/benefit balance for strapping and appliance tapes, see p. 1, [0019] and [0024].
Regarding claim 2, Kerep teaches that the MOPP carrier has a thickness of between 30 and 170 microns, see p. 5, [0107].
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the ‘030 application recites that the elastomer is a hydrogenated polyvinylaromatic-polydiene block copolymer.
Regarding claim 4, claim 9 of the ‘030 application recites this limitation.
Regarding clam 5, claim 8 of the ‘030 application recites that the fraction of tackifier resin is from 28 to 55% by weight of the adhesive, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of the ‘030 application recites this limitation.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of the ‘030 application recites that the amount of reinforcing component is from 2.5 to 22 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the ‘030 application recites that the softening point of the reinforcing component is at least 140 °C.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of the ‘030 application teaches using from 28% to 60% by weight of the elastomer component and 2.5% to 22% by weight of the reinforcing component, which is a range of from 30.5% to 82 % by weight in total, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, claim 2 of the ‘030 application recites using from 2 to 25 wt. % of the plasticizer component which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the claims of the ‘030 application do not require any mineral oil constituent.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of the ‘030 application recites optionally including further adjuvants reading on the claimed further additives. Claim 1 specifies up to 60 wt. % of the elastomer component and up to 22 wt. % of the reinforcing component and claim 1 specifies up to 25 wt. % of the plasticizer component. This allows for an amount of adjuvants of less than 18 wt. % or less than 10 wt. % as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 of the ‘030 application specifies a self-adhesive product reading on the claimed tape.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/884,844 in view of Kerep (U.S. Pub. 2015/0291855). The claims filed on 13 September 2024 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 13 of the ‘544 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive product comprising a layer of adhesive compound and a carrier material. Claim 1 specifies that the adhesive includes a) at least 28% to at most 60% by weight of an elastomer component, b) a tackifier resin, and d) optionally from 2.5% to 22 wt. % of a reinforcing component. Claim 8 further specifies that the amount of tackifier resin is from 28% to 55% by weight. These amounts overlap the amounts specified in claim 1, and further allow for the amount of elastomer and reinforcing component to be above 52 wt. % as claimed. Claim 5 also specifies that the reinforcing compound includes at least one resin with a weight average molecular weight Mw of 1000 g/mol to 15,000 g/mol. It would have been obvious to have combined these claimed features to formulate a self-adhesive tape within the scope of claim 1 of the present application.
Although the ‘544 application recites a carrier layer, it does not specify a monoaxially oriented polypropylene carrier layer.
However, Kerep describes the combination of an elastomeric adhesive and a monoaxially oriented polypropylene (MOPP) carrier film, see abstract and p. 3, [0064] and [0067]. It would have been obvious to have used a MOPP carrier with the adhesive as this provides the ideal cost/benefit balance for strapping and appliance tapes, see p. 1, [0019] and [0024].
Regarding claim 2, Kerep teaches that the MOPP carrier has a thickness of between 30 and 170 microns, see p. 5, [0107].
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the ‘544 application recites that the elastomer is a hydrogenated polyvinylaromatic-polydiene block copolymer.
Regarding claim 4, claim 9 of the ‘544 application recites this limitation.
Regarding clam 5, claim 8 of the ‘544 application recites that the fraction of tackifier resin is from 28 to 55% by weight of the adhesive, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of the ‘544 application recites this limitation.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of the ‘544 application recites that the amount of reinforcing component is from 2.5 to 22 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the ‘544 application recites that the softening point of the reinforcing component is at least 140 °C.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of the ‘544 application teaches using from 28% to 60% by weight of the elastomer component and 2.5% to 22% by weight of the reinforcing component, which is a range of from 30.5% to 82 % by weight in total, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, claim 2 of the ‘544 application recites using from 2 to 25 wt. % of the plasticizer component which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the claims of the ‘544 application do not require any mineral oil constituent.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of the ‘544 application recites optionally including further adjuvants reading on the claimed further additives. Claim 1 specifies up to 60 wt. % of the elastomer component and up to 22 wt. % of the reinforcing component and claim 1 specifies up to 25 wt. % of the plasticizer component. This allows for an amount of adjuvants of less than 18 wt. % or less than 10 wt. % as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 of the ‘544 application specifies a self-adhesive product reading on the claimed tape.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/812,453 in view of Kerep (U.S. Pub. 2015/0291855). The claims filed on 22 August 2024 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 13 of the ‘453 application recites a pressure-sensitive adhesive product comprising a layer of adhesive compound and a carrier material. Claim 1 specifies that the adhesive includes a) at least 28% to at most 60% by weight of an elastomer component, b) a tackifier resin, and d) optionally from 2.5% to 22 wt. % of a reinforcing component. Claim 8 further specifies that the amount of tackifier resin is from 28% to 55% by weight. These amounts overlap the amounts specified in claim 1, and further allow for the amount of elastomer and reinforcing component to be above 52 wt. % as claimed. Claim 5 also specifies that the reinforcing compound includes at least one resin with a weight average molecular weight Mw of 1000 g/mol to 15,000 g/mol. It would have been obvious to have combined these claimed features to formulate a self-adhesive tape within the scope of claim 1 of the present application.
Although the ‘453 application recites a carrier layer, it does not specify a monoaxially oriented polypropylene carrier layer.
However, Kerep describes the combination of an elastomeric adhesive and a monoaxially oriented polypropylene (MOPP) carrier film, see abstract and p. 3, [0064] and [0067]. It would have been obvious to have used a MOPP carrier with the adhesive as this provides the ideal cost/benefit balance for strapping and appliance tapes, see p. 1, [0019] and [0024].
Regarding claim 2, Kerep teaches that the MOPP carrier has a thickness of between 30 and 170 microns, see p. 5, [0107].
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the ‘453 application recites that the elastomer is a hydrogenated polyvinylaromatic-polydiene block copolymer.
Regarding claim 4, claim 9 of the ‘453 application recites this limitation.
Regarding clam 5, claim 8 of the ‘453 application recites that the fraction of tackifier resin is from 28 to 55% by weight of the adhesive, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of the ‘453 application recites this limitation.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of the ‘453 application recites that the amount of reinforcing component is from 2.5 to 22 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the ‘453 application recites that the softening point of the reinforcing component is at least 140 °C.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of the ‘453 application teaches using from 28% to 60% by weight of the elastomer component and 2.5% to 22% by weight of the reinforcing component, which is a range of from 30.5% to 82 % by weight in total, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, claim 2 of the ‘453 application recites using from 2 to 25 wt. % of the plasticizer component which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the claims of the ‘453 application do not require any mineral oil constituent.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of the ‘453 application recites optionally including further adjuvants reading on the claimed further additives. Claim 1 specifies up to 60 wt. % of the elastomer component and up to 22 wt. % of the reinforcing component and claim 1 specifies up to 25 wt. % of the plasticizer component. This allows for an amount of adjuvants of less than 18 wt. % or less than 10 wt. % as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 of the ‘453 application specifies a self-adhesive product reading on the claimed tape.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “…based in each case…”, but only a single component range case is presented in the claim. For grammatical clarity, the Examiner suggests reciting “based ”
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 2-6 and 8-12 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 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "more particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably hydrogenated and non-hydrogenated polymers of cyclopentadiene" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "particularly preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrases "in particular aromatic" and “preferably obtained from C8 and/or C9 streams and preferably selected from the group consisting of styrene, alpha-methylstyrene, para-methylstyrene, indene, methylindiene, and copolymers thereof" and “preferably has a weight-average molecular weight Mw of 1000 g/mol to 15 000 g/mol, preferably 2000 g/mol to 10 000 g/mol" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations in the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “…a weight-average molecular weight Mw of 1000 g/mol to 15 000 g/mol”, and the claim also recites “2000 g/mol to 10 000 g/mol” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably at least 140°C " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably at least 60% by weight" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably in an amount of 3 to 25% by weight, preferably 8 to 18% by weight" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “…an amount of 3 to 25% by weight”, and the claim also recites “preferably 8 to 18% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, the reference to “the fraction of mineral oil and/or mineral oil mixtures” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as no such mineral oil or mixture is referred to in claim 1, upon which this claim depends. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “wherein the adhesive further comprises mineral oil and/or mineral oil mixtures in the amount of not more than 3% by weight based on the total weight of the pressure-sensitive adhesive.” which provides proper antecedent basis for this term. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably not more than 1.5% by weight" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “…not more than 3% by weight”, and the claim also recites “preferably not more than 1.5% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably in an amount of not more than 18% by weight, particularly preferably not more than 10% by weight based on the total weight of the pressure-sensitive adhesive." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “…not more than 18% by weight”, and the claim also recites “particularly preferably not more than 10% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,653,682 B1 in view of Kerep (U.S. Pub. 2015/0291855).
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘682 describes a hot melt adhesive composition comprising a) from 5-50 wt. % of a thermoplastic polymer, b) from 15-60 wt. % of a tackifying resin, c) from 5-30 wt. % of a plasticizer, d) a salt of hydroxylated fatty acid, and optionally e) an endbloock reinforcing resin present in the amount of from 3-20 wt. % if used, see abstract and p. 3, [0024] and p. 10, [0082-0087]. Component a) is an elastomeric block copolymer with an AB or ABA or (AB)nY structure such as having A blocks of polystyrene and B blocks of an elastomeric diene block polymer polybutadiene or polyisoprene. See p. 4, [0031]. The total amount of components a) and e) may be from 8 to 70 wt. % which overlaps the claimed range.
The reinforcing component e) has a molecular weight of from 5000 to 15,000 g/mol, see p. 10, [0085], which exceeds the claimed 800 g/mol minimum amount.
Although EP ‘682 recites a substrate layer which may be polyolefin (see p. 12, [0112]) and may be a film (see p. 12, [0111]), it does not specify a monoaxially oriented polypropylene carrier layer.
However, Kerep describes the combination of an elastomeric adhesive and a monoaxially oriented polypropylene (MOPP) carrier film, see abstract and p. 3, [0064] and [0067]. It would have been obvious to have used a MOPP carrier with the adhesive as this has better mechanical properties and provides the ideal cost/benefit balance for strapping and appliance tapes, see p. 1, [0019] and [0024].
EP ‘682 and Kerep are analogous as they are similar in structure and function, as each describes elastomeric adhesives used with polyolefin carrier layers.
Regarding claim 2, Kerep teaches that the MOPP carrier has a thickness of between 30 and 170 microns, see p. 5, [0107], or between 40 and 150 microns, see p. 1, [0022].
Regarding claim 3, EP ‘682 describes a block copolymer with styrene and a polydiene, including styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) or styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene (SEBS) and others, see p. 4, [0034-0035].
Regarding claim 4, EP ‘682 teaches suitable tackifiers at p. 5-6, [0048], a list which includes polyterpene resins formed from pinene, C9 aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon resins and their hydrogenated derivatives, and C5/C9 aliphatic and/or aromatic petroleum resins and their corresponding hydrogenated derivatives.
Regarding claim 5, EP ‘682 teaches that the amount of tackifying resin used in the adhesive may be from 20-60 wt. %, see p. 7, [0062], which overlaps the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, the endblock reinforcing resin used in EP ‘682 is an aromatic resin with an aromatic C9 hydrocarbon monomer, styrene, alpha-methylstyrene, or others, see p. 10 [0083]. The molecular weight is from 5000 to 15,000 g/mol, see p. 10 [0086].
Regarding claim 7, the endblock reinforcing resin of EP ‘682 is used in the amount of 3-20% by weight or preferably 5-15% by weight, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, the endblock reinforcing resin of EP ‘682 has a softening point of from 90 to 160 °C, see p. 10, [0086], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, EP ‘682 teaches using from 5-50 wt. % of the thermoplastic polymer A (see p. 2, [0023]) and from 3-20 wt. % of the endblock reinforcing resin (see p. 10, [0087]) which is a total of from 8-70 wt. % of the adhesive composition. This overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, EP ‘682 teaches using from 5-30 wt. %, or preferably 15-25 wt. %, of a plasticizer component, see p. 7, [0063 and [0070].
Regarding claim 11, EP ‘682 does not require a mineral oil in the adhesive composition. The plasticizer oil may be a naphthenic oil, paraffinic oil, polyisobutylene, benzoate ester, wax, or an acrylic or acid modified wax, see p. 7, [0063].
Regarding claim 12, EP ‘682 teaches additional additives including from 0.1 to 10 wt. % of a salt of a hydroxylated fatty acid (see p. 8, [0071]) and from 0.1 to 2 wt. % of an antioxidant (see p. 10, [0088]).
Regarding claim 13, EP ‘682 teaches that the adhesive does not comprise a solvent, see p. 1, [0002]. A solvent is not used during the manufacturing steps described at p. 11, [0105].
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hähnel (U.S. Pub. 2018/0112107) describes an adhesive tape which may use a monoaxially oriented polypropylene carrier and a rubber adhesive. 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