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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikushima (JP 2012-144668 A) in view of Schroeyers et al. (US 2011/0104487 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikushima teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive tape (Claim 1 of Ikushima) comprising a base material/substrate (Fig. 1, Item 100) including an olefin-based resin (Paragraph 0032), a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Claim 1 of Ikushima) including an olefin-based resin (Paragraph 0042) and a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Claim 1 of Ikushima) including a styrene elastomer (Paragraph 0042, 0062).
Ikushima teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive tape is a laminate comprising the base material (Item 10), the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Item 21/B1) and the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Item 22/B2) laminated in this order.
Ikushima does not specifically teach the composition of the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Schroeyers teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive composition (Abstract) comprising a styrene-isoprene block copolymer, an olefin-based elastomer and a tackifier. (Claim 1 of Schroeyers). Schroeyers teaches this pressure sensitive adhesive composition provides the advantage of similar properties of block copolymer adhesives, but at a lower cost and with increased processability. (Paragraph 0010). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Schroeyers as the adhesive composition in either the first and/or second adhesive layers of Ikushima.
Regarding Claim 2, Ikushima teaches the olefin-based resin in the base material contains a propylene-based resin. (Paragraph 0032)
Regarding Claim 3, Ikushima teaches the base material can be entirely polypropylene-based resin. (Paragraph 0035) Ikushima teaches UV additives can be 0.01 to 5 parts by weight, heat resistance stabilizer can be 0.01 to 5 parts by weight, particles can be 1 to 200 parts by weight of the base material per 100 parts by weight of the polymer resin. (Paragraph 0036-0039). This creates a range for the amount of propylene based resin to overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikushima teaches applying a release treatment layer to a surface of the base material on which the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is prevented from being formed. (Paragraph 0064-0065)
Regarding Claim 7, Ikushima teaches the olefin-based resin included in the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains a propylene-based resin. (Paragraph 0043)
Regarding Claim 8, Ikushima teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition for forming the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains a tackifier in the amount of 12wt% or greater. (Paragraph 0055). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 10, Schroeyers teaches the styrene content of the styrene-isoprene block copolymer can range from 18 to 30 wt%. (Paragraph 0111-0112). Schroeyers also teaches the styrene content of the styrene-isoprene block copolymer can range from 10 to 45 wt%. (Paragraph 0021). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, Schroeyers teaches the styrene-isoprene block copolymer contains a diblock copolymer. (Paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 12, Schroeyers teaches the weight percent of the tackifier is 5 to 40 wt%. (Paragraph 0049). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, Schroeyers teaches the tackifier can be hydrogenated hydrocarbon resin, which is hydrogenated petroleum resin. (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 14, Schroeyers teaches an oil in the composition of the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. (Paragraph 0076).
Regarding Claim 15, Schroeyers teaches the weight percent of the oil is 1 to 50 wt%. (Paragraph 0079). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16, Ikushima teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive strength of the pressure sensitive adhere can be 0.7 N/20 mm or less. (Paragraph 0031). Converting this to N/25 mm would create a range that overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Ikushima and Schroeyers in view of Herridge et al. (US 5,660,922).
Regarding Claim 17, Ikushima does not teach the difference in melt viscosity at 160 between the first and second adhesive compositions. Ikushima teaches the tape is formed through co-extrusion (Paragraph 0075).
Herridge teaches melt-extruding tape (Abstract) with multiple adhesive layers. (Fig. 1C). Herridge teaches melt viscosity of adhesives to be co-extruded should be 1 centipose to 1 million poise at temperatures of 90 to 300 degrees C. (Column 5, Lines 10-22) Herridge teaches the ratio melt viscosity of layers, including adhesive layers, to be co-extruded should be 2:1 and 1:2 or even 1:1 (Column 6, Lines 59-67). This creates melt viscosity range that overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Herridge teaches lower melt viscosity ratio ensures more distinct layers and prevents the material from migrating too much when co-extruding. (Column 6, Lines 59-67). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed melt viscosity difference range in Ikushima as taught by Herridge to prevent adhesive layer migration when co-extruding the layers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikushima and Schroeyers in view of Maier et al. Calhoun et al. (US 5,585,178 A).
Regarding Claim 18, Ikushima does not teach the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has at least two portions having different pressure-sensitive adhesive strengths including a strong pressure-sensitive adhesive portion and a weak pressure-sensitive adhesive portion.
Calhoun teaches an outer pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has the same adhesive composition but cured differently so there is a first and second portions of pressure sensitive adhesive. (Abstract; Claim 1 of Calhoun; Column 3, Lines 15-25). Calhoun teaches having these two different zones, a strong pressure-sensitive adhesive portion, and a weak pressure sensitive adhesive portion, allows for better control of the tape when adhering to a substrate by leveraging the difference in adhesive properties of the zones. (Column 3, Lines 29-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art for the tape of Ikushima to have strong pressure-sensitive adhesive portion and weak pressure-sensitive adhesive portion as taught by Calhoun for the increased control when adhering the tape.
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikushima and Schroeyers in view of Sato (JP 2015-212831 A)
Regarding Claims 18-19, Ikushima does not specifically teach the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer includes two portions with strong and weak portions, and the difference between the strong pressure sensitive adhesive portion and the weak pressure-sensitive adhesive portion range.
Sato teaches an adhesive label where the outer pressure sensitive adhesive layer includes two different adhesive portions, a strong pressure sensitive adhesive portion and a weak pressure sensitive adhesive portion. (Abstract; Paragraph 0024) Sato teaches the difference between adhesive strength to a stainless-steel plate can be 3.1 N/25mm, 4.5 N/25mm, or 7.6 N/25mm, (Paragraph 0048). Sato teaches having different zones of the claimed adhesive strength allows the adhesive to be applied in more range of applications and increase the usefulness of the label. (Paragraph 0007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed two different adhesive zones with the claimed adhesive strength differences in Ikushima to broaden where the tape can be used and increase usefulness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §102 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Ikushima does not specifically teach the claimed composition for the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer and would not do a combined olefin-based and styrene-based elastomer, due to the examples. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Schroeyers teaches the claimed composition. With regard to argument that Ikushima would not combine olefin and styrene elastomers, the broad disclosure of Ikushima teaches a list of suitable elastomers for the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer and does not state olefin-based elastomer cannot be present. The narrower examples do not limit the broad disclosure. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. (MPEP §2123).
Applicant argues that it would be unexpected the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer composition would allow for repeatable attachment and detachment. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Schroeyers teaches the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer composition is capable of being removed and reused multiple times (Abstract; Paragraph 0003, 0011)
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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 Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights