Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejection over Hanley taken alone has been withdrawn in view of the present response. Hanley discloses a multilayer pressure sensitive adhesive assembly wherein a polymeric foam comprises carbon black particles distributed therein. Hence, Hanley fails to teach the polymeric foam comprising activated carbon particles incorporated therein.
The rejection over Hanley in view of Eckhardt has been maintained.
The rejection over Bieber in view of Eckhardt has been maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0098962 to Hanley et al. (hereinafter “Hanley”) in view of US 2019/0345367 to Eckhardt et al. (hereinafter “Eckhardt”).
As to claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 17 and 18, Hanley discloses a double-sided adhesive tape comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface; a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA layer on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 18-20). The first and second PSA layers are identical (paragraph 10). The first PSA layer comprises:
a linear block copolymer of the formula R-(G)m wherein m is 1 or 2;
a multi-am block copolymer of the formula Qn-Y wherein:
Q represents an arm of the multi-arm block copolymer and each arm independently has the formular G-R,
n represents the number of arms and is a whole number of at least 3, and
Y is the residue of a multifunctional coupling agent,
wherein each R is a rubber block comprising a polymerized conjugated diene, a hydrogenated derivative of a polymerized conjugated diene, or combinations thereof, and
each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer, and at least one hydrocarbon tackifier (paragraphs 27-35 and 42).
The first PSA layer contains 31.8 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer and 13.63 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the total weight of the first PSA layer (table 2, ADH1).
The polymeric foam comprises 0.38 wt% of CMB 4900 carbon black (paragraph 90).
Hanley does not explicitly disclose the polymeric foam comprising activated carbon.
Eckhardt, however, discloses a multilayer PSA assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract and paragraphs 216-221). The first PSA layer comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, 3 to 25 wt% of a (meth)acrylate copolymer, 1 to 15 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 1 to 20 wt% of a deblock copolymer, and 0.1 to 10 wt% of a crosslinking additive, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (paragraphs 179-185). Eckhardt also teaches that the polymeric foam layer is a polyacrylate foam comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein (paragraphs 56 and 62). The activated carbon particles act as an efficient absorbent material for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from the PSA assembly, thereby enhancing the reduction of VOC’s emission (paragraph 62). Unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer (paragraphs 63 and 64). The activated carbon particles have an individual specific surface area in a range from 100 to 2000 m2/g, when measured according to the BET nitrogen absorption test method (paragraph 68). The activated carbon particles are present in an amount of 2 to 15 wt% based on the weight of the polymeric foam (paragraph 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute activated carbon disclosed in Eckhardt for the carbon black disclosed in Hanley because unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer.
As to claim 2, Hanley discloses that the first PSA layer comprises Regalite R1125 and Cumar 130 tackifiers and their combined content of 44.97 wt% based on the total weight of the first PSA layer (table 2, ADH-1). This is within the claimed range.
As to claims 3 and 6, Hanley discloses that the rubbery block of the linear block copolymer comprises at least one of polyisobutylene, polyisoprene or polybutadiene while at least one glassy block G of the linear block copolymer comprises at least one of styrene or an alkylated styrene (paragraph 34).
As to claim 4, Hanley discloses a double-sided adhesive tape comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface; a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA layer on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 18-20). The first and second PSA layers are identical (paragraph 10). The first PSA layer comprises:
a linear block copolymer of the formula R-(G)m wherein m is 1 or 2;
a multi-am block copolymer of the formula Qn-Y wherein:
Q represents an arm of the multi-arm block copolymer and each arm independently has the formular G-R,
n represents the number of arms and is a whole number of at least 3, and
Y is the residue of a multifunctional coupling agent,
wherein each R is a rubber block comprising a polymerized conjugated diene, a hydrogenated derivative of a polymerized conjugated diene, or combinations thereof, and
each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer, and at least one hydrocarbon tackifier (paragraphs 27-35 and 42).
The first PSA layer contains 31.8 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer and 13.63 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the total weight of the first PSA layer (table 2, ADH1). The first PSA layer is free of a (meth) acrylate copolymer (table 2).
The polymeric foam comprises 0.38 wt% of CMB 4900 carbon black (paragraph 90).
Hanley does not explicitly disclose the polymeric foam comprising activated carbon.
Eckhardt, however, discloses a multilayer PSA assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract and paragraphs 216-221). The first PSA layer comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, 3 to 25 wt% of a (meth)acrylate copolymer, 1 to 15 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 1 to 20 wt% of a deblock copolymer, and 0.1 to 10 wt% of a crosslinking additive, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (paragraphs 179-185). Eckhardt also teaches that the polymeric foam layer is a polyacrylate foam comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein (paragraphs 56 and 62). The activated carbon particles act as an efficient absorbent material for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from the PSA assembly, thereby enhancing the reduction of VOC’s emission (paragraph 62). Unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer (paragraphs 63 and 64). The activated carbon particles have an individual specific surface area in a range from 100 to 2000 m2/g, when measured according to the BET nitrogen absorption test method (paragraph 68). The activated carbon particles are present in an amount of 2 to 15 wt% based on the weight of the polymeric foam (paragraph 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute activated carbon disclosed in Eckhardt for the carbon black disclosed in Hanley because unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer.
As to claim 5, Hanley discloses a double-sided adhesive tape comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface; a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA layer on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 18-20). The first and second PSA layers are identical (paragraph 10). The first PSA layer comprises:
a linear block copolymer of the formula R-(G)m wherein m is 1 or 2;
a multi-am block copolymer of the formula Qn-Y wherein:
Q represents an arm of the multi-arm block copolymer and each arm independently has the formular G-R,
n represents the number of arms and is a whole number of at least 3, and
Y is the residue of a multifunctional coupling agent,
wherein each R is a rubber block comprising a polymerized conjugated diene, a hydrogenated derivative of a polymerized conjugated diene, or combinations thereof, and
each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer, and at least one hydrocarbon tackifier (paragraphs 27-35 and 42).
The first PSA layer contains 31.8 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer and 13.63 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the total weight of the first PSA layer (table 2, ADH1). The first PSA layer is free of a polymeric plasticizer (table 2, ADH-3). It is noted that naphthenic oil plasticizer is not a polymeric plasticizer.
The polymeric foam comprises 0.38 wt% of CMB 4900 carbon black (paragraph 90).
Hanley does not explicitly disclose the polymeric foam comprising activated carbon.
Eckhardt, however, discloses a multilayer PSA assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract and paragraphs 216-221). The first PSA layer comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, 3 to 25 wt% of a (meth)acrylate copolymer, 1 to 15 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 1 to 20 wt% of a deblock copolymer, and 0.1 to 10 wt% of a crosslinking additive, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (paragraphs 179-185). Eckhardt also teaches that the polymeric foam layer is a polyacrylate foam comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein (paragraphs 56 and 62). The activated carbon particles act as an efficient absorbent material for VOCs emitted from the PSA assembly, thereby enhancing the reduction of VOC’s emission (paragraph 62). Unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer (paragraphs 63 and 64).
The activated carbon particles have an individual specific surface area in a range from 100 to 2000 m2/g, when measured according to the BET nitrogen absorption test method (paragraph 68). The activated carbon particles are present in an amount of 2 to 15 wt% based on the weight of the polymeric foam (paragraph 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute activated carbon disclosed in Eckhardt for the carbon black disclosed in Hanley because unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer.
As to claim 7, Hanley discloses that the double-sided adhesive tape is crosslinked by electron beam crosslinking (paragraph 79).
As to claims 10 and 11, Hanley discloses that the polymeric foam comprises 96.8 wt% polyacrylate, 2.8 wt% microspheres and 0.38 wt% pigment (table 3). The polyacrylate is formed from polymerization of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and acrylic acid (table 3, and paragraph 83).
As to claim 12, Hanley discloses that the hydrocarbon tackifier is commercially available under the trade name of REGALITE, ESCOREZ (table 1). Therefore, it is not seen that at least one of a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) value of less than 1000 ppm, or a Volatile Fogging Compound (FOG) value of less than 1500 ppm, when measured by thermogravimetric analysis could not be present as like material has like property.
As to claim 14, Hanley discloses that the hydrocarbon tackifier of the double-sided adhesive tape is commercially available under the trade name of REGALITE, ESCOREZ (table 1). Therefore, it is not seen that the double-sided adhesive tape could not have at least one of a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) value of less than 500 ppm according to VDA278, or a Volatile Fogging Compound (FOG) value of less than 1000 ppm according to VDA278 or an odor level of not more than 3 according to VDA 270 could not be present as like material has like property.
As to claims 15 and 16, Hanley discloses a process for making the adhesive tape comprising: compound the multi-arm block copolymer and at least one hydrocarbon tackifier to form a PSA formulation, melt co-extruding the polymeric foam layer and the PSA formulation to form the adhesive, crosslinking the adhesive tape with electron beam irradiation (paragraphs 91-94).
As to claim 19, Hanley discloses that the first PSA layer comprises: 26.73 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 14.39 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (table 6, ADH-4). Hence, a weight ratio of the multi-arm block copolymer to the linear block copolymer in the first PSA layer is 1.85:1 within the claimed range.
As to claim 20, Hanley discloses that the polymeric foam layer further includes expandable microspheres (table 3).
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Hanley alone has been overcome in view of Applicant’s response. Hanley fails to disclose a multilayer pressure sensitive adhesive assembly wherein a polymeric foam comprises activated carbon particles distributed therein. However, new combination of Hanley and Eckhardt suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0321089 to Bieber et al. (hereinafter “Bieber”) in view of Eckhardt.
As to claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 17 and 18, Bieber discloses a multilayer pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA layer on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 135 and 136). The first and second PSA layers are identical (paragraph 135). The first PSA layer comprises:
a multi-arm block copolymer in an amount of 20 wt% to 80 wt%, based on the total weight of the first PSA layer, the multi-arm block copolymer having formular Qn-Y wherein:
Q represents an arm of the multi-arm block copolymer and each arm independently has the formular G-R,
n represents the number of arms and is a whole number of at least 3, and
Y is the residue of a multifunctional coupling agent,
wherein each R is a rubber block comprising a polymerized conjugated diene, a hydrogenated derivative of a polymerized conjugated diene, or combinations thereof, and
each G is a glassy block comprising a polymerized monovinyl aromatic monomer, and at least one hydrocarbon tackifier (abstract, and paragraph 57).
Bieber does not explicitly disclose the polymeric foam layer comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein.
Eckhardt, however, discloses a multilayer PSA assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract and paragraphs 216-221). The first PSA layer comprises: 20-80 wt% of a linear block copolymer, 20-70 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, 3 to 25 wt% of a (meth)acrylate copolymer, 1 to 15 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 1 to 20 wt% of a deblock copolymer, and 0.1 to 10 wt% of a crosslinking additive, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (paragraphs 179-185). Eckhardt also teaches that the polymeric foam layer is a polyacrylate foam comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein (paragraphs 56 and 62). The activated carbon particles act as an efficient absorbent material for VOCs emitted from the PSA assembly, thereby enhancing the reduction of VOC’s emission (paragraph 62). Unlike carbon black, activated carbon does not detrimentally affect the mechanical properties of the polymeric foam layer while forming a true black polymer foam layer (paragraphs 63 and 64). The activated carbon particles have an individual specific surface area in a range from 100 to 2000 m2/g, when measured according to the BET nitrogen absorption test method (paragraph 68). The activated carbon particles are present in an amount of 2 to 15 wt% based on the weight of the polymeric foam (paragraph 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of activated carbon particles disclosed in Eckhardt in the polymeric foam layer disclosed in Bieber motivated by the desire to enhance the reduction of VOC’s emission from the PSA assembly (the motivational statement extracted from paragraph 62 of Eckhardt).
As to claim 2, Bieber discloses that the first PSA layer comprises: 25-60 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 25-60 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, and 3-40 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (paragraphs 120-125). In particular, the first PSA layer comprises: 32.43 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 44.81 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, and 13.90 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (table 4, skin 1).
As to claims 3 and 6, Bieber discloses that the rubbery block of the linear block copolymer comprises at least one of polyisobutylene, polyisoprene or polybutadiene while at least one glassy block G of the linear block copolymer comprises at least one of styrene or an alkylated styrene (paragraphs 60 and 61).
As to claim 7, Bieber discloses that the multilayer PSA assembly is crosslinked by electron beam crosslinking (paragraph 266).
As to claim 10, Bieber discloses that the polymeric foam comprises a polymer base material comprising at least one of a polyacrylate, a polyurethane, polyolefin or rubber-based elastomer material (paragraphs 143-144).
As to claim 11, Bieber discloses that the polymeric foam comprises a polyacrylate (paragraphs 143 and 144). Bieber does not explicitly disclose the polyacrylate whose main monomer component comprises a linear of branched alkyl (meth)acrylate ester.
Eckhardt, however, discloses a multilayer PSA assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract and paragraphs 216-221). The polymeric foam comprises a polyacrylate whose main monomer component comprises a linear of branched alkyl (meth)acrylate ester including methyl (meth)acrylate or ethyl (meth)acrylate (paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyacrylate whose main monomer component comprises a linear of branched alkyl (meth)acrylate ester disclosed in Eckhardt for formation of the polymeric foam disclosed in Beiber because such is a typical material for the polymeric foam layer used in the multilayer PSA assemble and Eckhardt provides necessary details to practice the invention of Beiber.
As to claim 12, Bieber discloses that the hydrocarbon tackifier has at least one of a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) value of less than 1000 ppm, or a Volatile Fogging Compound (FOG) value of less than 1500 ppm, when measured by thermogravimetric analysis (paragraphs 61 and 65).
As to claim 14, Bieber discloses that the multilayer PSA assembly has at least one of a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) value of less than 500 ppm according to VDA278, a Volatile Fogging Compound (FOG) value of less than 1000 ppm according to VDA278 (paragraphs 152-154).
As to claims 15 and 16, Bieber discloses a process for making the multilayer PSA assembly comprising: compound the multi-arm block copolymer and at least one hydrocarbon tackifier to form a PSA formulation, melt co-extruding the polymeric foam layer and the PSA formulation to form the multilayer PSA assembly, crosslinking the multilayer PSA assembly with electron beam irradiation (paragraphs 262-266).
As to claim 19, Bieber discloses that the first PSA layer comprises: 32.43 wt% of a multi-arm block copolymer, 44.81 wt% of a hydrocarbon tackifier, and 13.90 wt% of a linear block copolymer, based on the weight of the first PSA layer (table 4, skin 1). Hence, a weight ratio of the multi-arm block copolymer to the linear block copolymer in the first PSA layer is 2.3:1 within the claimed range.
As to claim 20, Bieber discloses that the polymeric foam layer further includes expandable microspheres (paragraph 138).
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that the claim is not rendered obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Bieber and Eckhardt because the proposed combination is unsupported by the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Applicant further asserts that Bieber already discloses the PSA material having low VOC’s emission without using activated carbon in the foam layer. Therefore, there is no motivation to incorporate the activated carbon from Eckhardt to the foam layer of Bieber to reduce the VOC’s emission.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bieber does not explicitly disclose the polymeric foam layer comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein.
Turning to the Eckhardt reference, it discloses a multilayer PSA assembly comprising a polymeric foam layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, a first PSA layer on the first major surface and a second PSA on the second major surface of the polymeric foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 216-221). Eckhardt also teaches that the polymeric foam layer is a polyacrylate foam comprising a plurality of activated carbon particles distributed therein (paragraphs 56 and 62). The activated carbon particles act as an efficient absorbent material for VOCs emitted from the PSA assembly, thereby enhancing the reduction of VOC’s emission (paragraph 62). This is an incentive or guidance to modify the references. As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Bieber and Eckhardt, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist.
Applicant also states that claim 14 stands improperly rejected because the examiner fails to establish the multilayer PSA assembly of Bieber having at least one of a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) value of less than 500 ppm according to VDA278, a Volatile Fogging Compound (FOG) value of less than 1000 ppm according to VDA278.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in paragraphs 152-154, Bieber discloses that the multilayer PSA assembly has at least one of a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) value of less than 500 ppm according to VDA278, a Volatile Fogging Compound (FOG) value of less than 1000 ppm according to VDA278.
Accordingly, the rejection over Bieber in view of Eckhardt has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights