DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on April 14, 2026 (“amendment”) in response to the Office action (OA) mailed on February 5, 2026 (“previous OA” have been fully considered.
Support for the claim 1 amendment can be found in page 9, lines 24-27 of the specification. Support for claim 23 can be found on page 20, lines 20-22 of the specification.
In view of the amendment to the specification submitted on May 14, 2026, the objection to the specification as set forth in the previous OA is withdrawn.
The objection to claims 10 and 18 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (US 20060240208 A1) as set forth in the previous OA is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 based on Kreckel et al. (US 5516581) in view of Butler et al. (US 3993826) is introduced.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Replace the recitation “wherein the acrylic polymer AP” with “wherein the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive comprises an acrylic polymer AP, wherein the acrylic polymer AP has been obtained from…”. This amendment better characterizes the claimed invention. See page 33, lines 15-17 of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 18 incorporates subject matter of parent claims 15 and 1. Claim 18 requires adhesive sealant layer present between the carrier layer and the pressure sensitive adhesive layer having a specific composition recited in the claim. Herbert discloses a sealing device comprising a waterproofing membrane (2), and adhesive sealant layer (3), and optionally a release liner (4) (abstract). While the adhesive sealant layer of Herbert includes at least one elastomer, at least one liquid polyolefin resin at 25°C, and at least one inert mineral filler (abstract), absent impermissible hindsight, Herbert does not provide any reason or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the sealant layer (3) between a carrier layer and another adhesive layer (i.e. the pressure sensitive adhesive layer) as claimed.
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 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreckel et al. (US 5516581) in view of Butler et al. (US 3993826).
As to claim 1, the release liner is optional and not required.
As to claim 1, Kreckel discloses a removable adhesive tape (sealing element) comprising a highly extensible inelastic backing (carrier layer having a first and a second major surface), and a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) (abstract). The backing of Kreckel comprises mixtures or blends of any plastic or plastic and elastomeric materials (elastomer E) (column 4, lines 5-10). Further, as the plastic, Kreckel discloses e.g. ethylene/propylene copolymers (propylene copolymer PC) as a material suitable for the backing (column 4, lines 4-5). Thus, blends of plastic and elastomeric materials disclosed by Kreckel equate to claimed polymer component.
Further, as to claim 1, Kreckel discloses that the PSA layer has a thickness of from about 25 micrometers to about 1,000 micrometers (column 4, lines 55-60). The claimed PSA layer thickness range of at least 100 micrometers overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Kreckel such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Further, as to claim 1, Kreckel discloses that the backing can have any thickness and the preferred thickness ranges from about 10 micrometers to 250 micrometers (column 4, lines 20-25). Claimed thickness range of at least 0.2 mm (200 micrometers) overlaps or lies within the thickness disclosed by Kreckel such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As to claim 1, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Kreckel is that Kreckel is silent as to disclosing propylene content of at least 65 wt% based on a total weight of propylene copolymer.
Butler discloses a PSA tape substrate consisting of a polyolefin film such as ethylene/propylene copolymer containing thermoplastic elastomer, in order to impart increased splitting resistance in a transverse direction (abstract). Further, Butler discloses a preferred ethylene/propylene copolymer has propylene units and ethylene units in the weight ratio ranges between 80:20 and 95:5 (column 1, lines 40-45). The claimed range of propylene content of at least 65 wt% overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Butler such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a propylene copolymer having a propylene content of at least 65 wt% as claimed in combination with an elastomer as desired by Kreckel and rendered obvious by Butler, motivated by the desire to form a carrier having increased splitting resistance in a transverse direction.
As to claim 2, Butler discloses that the proportion of the thermoplastic elastomer is generally below 30 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of polyolefin (column 1, lines 55-60). Further, Butler discloses ethylene-propylene copolymer of weight ratio 10:90 modified with 10% by weight of styrene butadiene block copolymer (elastomer) (Example 1).
As to claim 4, Butler discloses below 30 parts by weight of the elastomer per 100 parts by weight of polyolefin (column 1, lines 55-60). As such, Butler discloses less than 23 wt% of elastomer (30/130) * 100 = 23 wt%, and balance polyolefin of e.g. 76 wt%, which is within the claimed range of 5-85 wt% or overlaps with the claimed range of 5-85 wt%.
As to claim 5, Kreckel and Butler as set forth previously discloses ethylene-propylene copolymer, which meets claimed propylene-ethylene copolymer.
As to claim 6, Butler discloses that the elastomer is butyl rubber (column 1, lines 60-65).
As to claim 7, this claim defines alternate species (TPV) of parent claim 1 without first positively requiring the alternative species in the claim. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected as being dependent from the base claim 1.
As to claims 8 and 23, Kreckel as set forth previously discloses a polymer component. Kreckel does not explicitly disclose the amount of the polymer component as claimed. However, absent any factual evidence on the record, it would be reasonable to select a workable range of the polymer component including the claimed, motivated by the desire to form the backing of Kreckel.
As to claim 9, Kreckel discloses carrier layer but does not explicitly disclose its width as claimed. However, Kreckel discloses a double coated tape of dimension 25 mm by 25 mm (column 11, lines 5-6), which suggests that the backing of Kreckel has a width of 25 mm. Alternatively, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at a workable range of the width of the backing including the claimed, motivated by the desire to ensure that the adhesive tape covers the desired area of a substrate on which the tape is applied.
As to claims 10 and 12, Kreckel discloses acrylic PSA (column 4, lines 45-46).
As to claim 13, Kreckel discloses acrylic polymer formed of 90 wt% of isooctyl methacrylate (at least 45 wt% of at least one acrylic monomer AM of formula 1, wherein R1 is H and R2 is within branched alkyl group of 2 to 30 carbon atoms) and 10 wt% of acrylic acid (Example 1).
As to claim 14, Kreckel discloses that the that PSA is obtained using UV curable acrylic PSA (Example 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreckel et al. (US 5516581) in view of Butler et al. (US 3993826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouhadi (US 20060100377 A1).
Kreckel is silent as to disclosing claim 7.
Ouhadi discloses a high strength thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) composition (abstract) that is used to form articles such as gaskets and seals such as tailgate seals, cowl seals, gap fillers, cut line seals, door seals etc. (0071).
The TPV composition of Ouhadi includes a rubber component, a polyolefinic thermoplastic resin component, a propylene copolymer (PP copolymer), and a mineral filler (0007).
As to claim 7, Ouhadi discloses that the TPV is characterized by finely divided rubber particles dispersed within a plastic matrix, wherein the rubber particles are crosslinked (at least partially vulcanized) to promote elasticity (0004, 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the TPV of Ouhadi in the invention of Kreckel, motivated by the desire to from the carrier of Kreckel, and Kreckel desires that any plastic can be used in the formation of the carrier (column 4, lines 5-6 of Kreckel).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreckel et al. (US 5516581) in view of Butler et al. (US 3993826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20060240208 A1).
Kreckel discloses tackified rubber based adhesives (column 4, lines 40-45). Kreckel is silent as to disclosing butyl rubber.
Ishikawa teaches a waterproof and airtight double-sided pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) tape (sealing element) (0001) comprising a substrate made of rubber 2 having a thickness of from 0.4 to 2.0 mm (Figure 1A, Figure 1B, 0023-0033, 0064, 0069), and a PSA layer (3a, 3b) each having a thickness of from 0.3 (300 µm) to 1 mm (1,000 µm) (Figure 1A, 0080). Further, Ishikawa discloses that examples of PSA include synthetic rubber based adhesive including butyl rubber (0075).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a butyl rubber based PSA and use it to form the PSA of Kreckel since Kreckel desires rubber adhesive.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreckel et al. (US 5516581) in view of Butler et al. (US 3993826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wada et al. (US 20100255297 A1).
Kreckel is silent as to disclosing claims 15-17.
Wada discloses a PSA sheet comprising a substrate such as rubber sheet and a layer of PSA on the substrate (abstract and 0092). The PSA sheet of Wada can be used for sealing or filling holes and gaps (0099). Wada further disclose that a known or conventional surface treatment such as primer coating can be applied to the substrate surface, in particular, the surface on the side where the PSA layer is provided in order to increase the anchorability of the PSA layer to the substrate (0093). The examiner submits that the claimed invention does not set forth any specific composition of an adhesive sealant layer. As such, the primer layer of Wads equates to the claimed adhesive sealant layer.
It would have been obvious to provide the primer layer of Wada between the carrier layer and the PSA layer in the manner as claimed in claims 15-17, motivated by the desire to increase the anchorability of the PSA layer to the carrier layer.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreckel et al. (US 5516581) in view of Butler et al. (US 3993826) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Macuga (US 20040180195 A1).
Kreckel is silent as to disclosing claims 19-20.
Macuga discloses a housewrap for attachment to a building (abstract). The housewrap of Macuga comprises an adhesive layer that can be pattern coated as series of dots and/or series of longitudinally extending strips (Figure 8G, Figure 8H, 0043).
It would have been obvious to provide the PSA layer in a pattern as claimed and as rendered obvious by Macuga given that such pattern is known in the art for use with sealing element, and further doing so would be obvious for the purpose of e.g. saving the amount of the adhesive needed for adhesion of the sealing element to a surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the amendment have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights