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 1, Claims 1-3 and 6-19 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/22/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikushima (JP 2012-144668 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikushima teaches a pressure sensitive 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).
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).
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)
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.
Claims 3, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikushima.
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 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 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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikushima in view of Schroeyers et al. (US 2011/0104487 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, 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 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, as Schroeyers teaches the same composition as the claimed second pressure sensitive adhesive, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to assume the adhesive composition of Schroeyers would inherently teach the claimed range for adhesive strength.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Ikushima 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 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 in view of Lewin (US 2007/0104914 A1)
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.
Lewin teaches an adhesive tape with two different pressure sensitive adhesive portions; one strong portion and one weak portion. Lewin teaches the difference between the two portions can be 20 to 25 N/ 25 mm with regard to a stainless-steel plate (Paragraph 0013). 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). Lewin teaches having these two different zones with the claimed adhesive strength difference allows for better adherence of the tape, as the differing adhesive strength zones allow for adhesive layer to reach maximum strength while still adhering well at the start of the application of the tape. (Paragraph 0005-0006). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have strong and weak zones with the claimed adhesive strength difference in Ikushima as taught by Lewin for better adherence of the tape from start to finish.
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