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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 July 2026 and 25 August 2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Amendments to claims 1, 10, and 18, filed on 10 July 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are pending, of which claims 14 and 16-17 remain withdrawn from consideration as described on page 3 of the Office Action mailed on 12 January 2026.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 18-20 of record over Yang (U.S. Pub. 2022/0251432) in view of Iwasaki (U.S. Pat. 10,793,755) made of record on page 3, paragraph 6 of the office action mailed 24 June 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 10 July 2026. In particular, the adhesive of Yang has an epoxy resin content greater than the claimed amount.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) Reference in Dependent Forms. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form.
Claim 19 recites that the one or more poly(meth)acrylate compounds comprises a (co)polymer with a monomer base comprising a mass fraction of 70-85% in which the monomer base is selected from acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, acrylic acid esters, and methacrylic acid esters. However, Claim 18, upon which claim 19 depends, already recites that the one or more poly(meth)acrylate compounds are derived from a monomer base comprising a mass fraction of 98% or more of these same monomers. Thus Claim 19 fails to further limit the scope of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husemann (U.S. Pub. 2006/0228545) in view of Iwasaki (U.S. Pat. 10,793,755) as evidenced by Foster (U.S. Pub. 2003/0129536) and by the EPON Resin 1001F Technical Data Sheet from Westlake Epoxy, available at https://www.westlakeepoxy.com/en-us/product/epontm-resin-1001f (2025).
Regarding claim 1, Husemann describes an adhesive formed from a) 50-95 wt. % of an acrylic copolymer and b) 5-50 wt. % of an epoxy resin or mixture of two or more epoxy resins, see abstract and p. 1, [0009-0013]. The adhesive also includes a photoinitiator, see p. 6, [0089-0090]. A suitable photoinitiator is IRGACURE 651, see id; this is included in the amount of about 0.4 g out of 302.2 g of components on a dry basis, which is about 0.13 wt. % in Example 1 as described at p. 7, [0105].
The adhesive is applied to a carrier layer backing and may be a single- or double-sided adhesive tape, see p. 6, [0092]. Suitable backing layers include films, nonwovens, foams, wovens and woven films, and release paper or metal foils, see p. 6, [0093]. However, Husemann does not specify a polyethylene foam carrier layer with a mean thickness of from 150-500 microns as claimed.
Iwasaki describes an adhesive sheet and attached electronic device, see title and abstract. The adhesive includes an acrylic polymer, see col. 3, lines 57-62. The adhesive is formed on one or both sides of a foam substrate, see col. 9, lines 58-61 and col. 10, lines 5-9. Preferably the foam substrate is a polyethylene-based foamed resin substrate, although polypropylene foam substrates are also described, see col. 13, lines 53-67.
Iwasaki further teaches that the foam substrate has a thickness of 1,500 microns or less, preferably 500 microns or less with a lower limit of 50 microns. See col. 18, lines 4-10. This overlaps the claimed range of 150 to 550 microns.
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).
Husemann and Iwasaki are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as each discloses pressure-sensitive adhesive sheets with acrylic-containing adhesive layers formed on foam substrates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the adhesive of Husemann onto a polyethylene foam substrate as disclosed in Iwasaki in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute polyethylene foam for polypropylene foam as Iwasaki teaches that polyolefin foam substrate are suitable due to their desired properties including closed-cell structure and flowability to irregularities on the surface of an adherend, and a polyethylene foam in particular provides a uniform thickness and preferable flexibility. See Iwasaki at col. 13, lines 53-67. There is a reasonable expectation of success as Husemann teaches that a foam backing layer is suitable for the adhesive.
Regarding claim 3, Husemann teaches suitable cycloaliphatic epoxy resins such as ERL 4206 (vinyl cyclohexane dioxide) from Union Carbide at p. 5, [0074]. The epoxy resins have at least 2 epoxy groups for crosslinking, see p. 5, [0070]. Foster is relied upon for the limited evidentiary purpose to teach that ERL 4206 is a liquid epoxy resin, see Foster at p. 3, [0021].
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki teaches that the foam substrate has an apparent density of from 0.08 to 0.7 g/cm3, most preferably 0.3 to 0.6 g/cm3 because the interlaminar strength, compressive strength, average bubble diameter, and other properties can be easily controlled within this density range. See col. 13, lines 36-48. This is equal to 300 to 600 kg/m3 and is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki teaches that the foam substrate has a 25% compressive strength of preferably 20 kPa or more, most preferably from 120 to 700 kPa. See col. 12, lines 39-49. This overlaps the claimed range. Although the compressive strength is measured according to JIS K6767 rather than DIN 53577-1988-12 as claimed (see col. 12, lines 50-58), the tests appear to be similar as they measure the same property and reflect the difference in a Japanese standard test name compared to a European standard test name.
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, Iwasaki teaches that the foam substate has a thickness of preferably 50 to 500 microns, see col. 18, lines 4-10. Using a 50-500 micron thick polyethylene foam substrate with an apparent density of from 0.3 to 0.6 g/cm3 (300-600 kg/m3) (see col. 13, lines 36-48) results in a foam carrier surface weight range of from 15 g/m2 to about 833 g/m2. For example, a 250 micron thick foam carrier with an apparent density of 0.5 g/cm3 (500 kg/m3) has a surface weight of 125 g/m2.
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 7, Iwasaki teaches using a foam carrier substrate which is a closed-pore foam, see col. 13, lines 26-35.
Regarding claim 8, Husemann describes an adhesive formed from a) 50-95 wt. % of an acrylic copolymer and b) 5-50 wt. % of an epoxy resin or mixture of two or more epoxy resins, see abstract and p. 1, [0009-0013]. Thus the one or more (poly)methacrylate compounds have a combined mass fraction within the claimed range of 50-80 wt. %. See also claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of Husemann teaches forming the adhesive polymer from one or more acrylic and/or methacrylic esters. Example 2 uses a combination of acrylic acid, butyl acrylate, tert-butyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate monomers, see p. 7, [0108].
Regarding claim 10, Husemann teaches that commercial epoxy resins at p. 5, [0073-0074]. Specific examples include EPON 1001 which is a solid epoxy resin as shown by the EPON 1001F technical data sheet, and ERL-4206 which is a liquid epoxy resin as shown in Foster at p. 3, [0021]. Two or more epoxy resins may be used in combination, see abstract and p. 1, [0013]. Thus it would have been obvious to have used a liquid epoxy resin and a solid epoxy resin as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Husemann teaches that the epoxy resins have at least 2 epoxy groups, reading on difunctional epoxy compounds, see p. 5, [0070].
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitation is a functional limitation of the adhesive element. Husemann does not expressly state that the adhesive element is configured to permit mechanical separation of the cured bond along the carrier layer with a separating tool as claimed. However, Husemann does describe a performance tests which measures the adhesive properties of the cured adhesive sheet, see p. 6, [0094-0095] in which a cured assembly is pulled apart using a tensile testing machine from Zwick and the peeling force is measured. The adhesive tape is thus considered to be capable of mechanical separation along the carrier layer with a separating tool as claimed
Regarding claim 13, in an example, Husemann applies one layer of the adhesive at a coating weight of 50 g/m2 to a 25 micron thick PET film, see p. 6, [0098]. Assuming an adhesive polymer density of about 1 g/cm3, the coating weight of 50 g/m2 corresponds to a 50 micron thick adhesive layer. While this example uses a PET film, Husemann also teaches that a foamed carrier layer is suitable, and that double sided adhesive tapes can be formed., see p. 6, [0092-0093].
Iwasaki further teaches that a foam substrate has a thickness of 1,500 microns or less, preferably 500 microns or less with a lower limit of 50 microns. See col. 18, lines 4-10. This overlaps the claimed range of 150 to 550 microns.
Thus, using two 50 micron thick adhesive layers of Husemann with a 500 micron thick foamed carrier of Iwasaki results in a value of the mean thickness of the two adhesive layers (100 microns) divided by the mean thickness of the carrier layer (500 microns) of 0.2 which is within the claimed range. Using a thinner carrier layer such as a 300 microns thick foamed carrier layer results in a thickness ratio of 100 microns to 300 microns, or 0.33 which is also within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Husemann describes an adhesive formed from a) 50-95 wt. % of an acrylic copolymer and b) 5-50 wt. % of an epoxy resin or mixture of two or more epoxy resins, see abstract and p. 1, [0009-0013]. The adhesive also includes a photoinitiator, see p. 6, [0089-0090]. A suitable photoinitiator is IRGACURE 651, see id; this is included in the amount of about 0.4 g out of 302.2 g of components on a dry basis, which is about 0.13 wt. % in Example 1 as described at p. 7, [0105].
The acrylic copolymer is formed using (a1) 40-95 wt. % of acrylic and/or methacrylic esters, (a2) from 5-30 wt. % of copolymerizable vinyl monomer, (a3) from 1-10 wt. % of a second copolymerizable vinyl monomer having an epoxy or anhydride function, and (a4) from 0-20 wt. % of a third copolymeriable vinyl monomer.
The (a1) monomers read on the claimed monomers. Suitable (a2) monomers include acrylic acid and methacrylic acid, see p. 2, [0022] which are also among the claimed monomers. The (a3) monomer may be as little as 1 wt. % of the copolymer composition, and the (a4) monomer may be absent. Thus using the (a1) and (a2) monomers with only 2% or less of the (a3) monomer and none of the (a4) monomer arrives at the claimed 98 % mass fraction requirement. 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).
The adhesive is applied to a carrier layer backing and may be a single- or double-sided adhesive tape, see p. 6, [0092]. Suitable backing layers include films, nonwovens, foams, wovens and woven films, and release paper or metal foils, see p. 6, [0093]. However, Husemann does not specify a polyethylene foam carrier layer as claimed.
Iwasaki describes an adhesive sheet and attached electronic device, see title and abstract. The adhesive includes an acrylic polymer, see col. 3, lines 57-62. The adhesive is formed on one or both sides of a foam substrate, see col. 9, lines 58-61 and col. 10, lines 5-9. Preferably the foam substrate is a polyethylene-based foamed resin substrate, although polypropylene foam substrates are also described, see col. 13, lines 53-67.
Husemann and Iwasaki are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as each discloses pressure-sensitive adhesive sheets with acrylic-containing adhesive layers formed on foam substrates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the adhesive of Husemann onto a polyethylene foam substrate as disclosed in Iwasaki in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute polyethylene foam for polypropylene foam as Iwasaki teaches that polyolefin foam substrate are suitable due to their desired properties including closed-cell structure and flowability to irregularities on the surface of an adherend, and a polyethylene foam in particular provides a uniform thickness and preferable flexibility. See Iwasaki at col. 13, lines 53-67. There is a reasonable expectation of success as Husemann teaches that a foam backing layer is suitable for the adhesive.
Regarding claim 19, Husemann teaches that the acrylic copolymer is formed using (a1) 40-95 wt. % of acrylic and/or methacrylic esters, (a2) from 5-30 wt. % of copolymerizable vinyl monomer, (a3) from 1-10 wt. % of a second copolymerizable vinyl monomer having an epoxy or anhydride function, and (a4) from 0-20 wt. % of a third copolymeriable vinyl monomer.
The (a1) monomers read on the claimed monomers. Suitable (a2) monomers include acrylic acid and methacrylic acid, see p. 2, [0022] which are also among the claimed monomers. Thus using the (a1) and (a2) monomers with only 15 wt. % or less of the combined (a3) and (a4) monomers arrives at the claimed 70-85 % mass fraction requirement. 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 20, Husemann teaches that additives such as tackifier resins can be included in the adhesive composition, see p. 5, [0080], but does not quantify this component.
Iwasaki teaches that a tackifying resin may be included in the adhesive composition in the amount of 5 to 60 parts by mass based on 100 parts of the adhesive polymer, see col. 8, lines 50-56.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 10 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 18-20 of record over Yang (U.S. Pub. 2022/0251432) in view of Iwasaki (U.S. Pat. 10,793,755) have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Additional Prior Art of Record
WO 2023/274875 A1 (and U.S. Pub. 2024/0240066 as the translation) describes a “foil” carrier with first a second adhesive layers in which the adhesive layers comprise an acrylic resin, from 18-60 wt. % at least one epoxy resin, and from 0.05-3 wt. % of a photoinitiator. The “foil” carrier is actually a polyethylene film. However, the carrier is not described to be foamed.
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