DETAILED ACTION
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
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 1-6, 9-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4012000 (Seiki).
Re claims 1-6, 9-11, and 15-20, Seiki teaches the adhesive article within overlapping ranges: [10] acrylic overlapping 25-50 wt%, [15-16, 65] epoxy 5-20 wt%, [19] polyol 5-50 wt%, [10, 22, 87] photo-cationic initiator (claim 18), [10] 6-12% curing agent, and [11] block polymer; having [83]reflective glass particles, [88-92] embedded as claimed where the second substrate on the bottom is functionally equivalent to the backing (see also [89] to polymer backings. Further to claim 9, the 25-50 wt% of each is obvious to have selected for the [10, 36] overlapping portions of hard and soft polymers as claimed. Re claim 10, see [11], Seiki. Re claim 11, see [12], Seiki. Re claim 15, see [44], Seiki. Re claims 16-17, see [71, 73, 75] polyester polyol of ove3rlapping g/mol. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, /n re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight amounts, including over values currently claimed, to adjust the mechanical and visual and adhesive properties of the resulting article.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4012000 (Seiki) in view of US 20190023948 A1 (Moren et al.).
Seiki is relied upon above.
Re claims 7-8, Seiki fails to disclose a scrim and tape as claimed.
Moren teaches a [30] scrim as a suitable material for substrate adhering a similar adhesive for a marking tape [149] (while applicant’s claim is directed to intended use).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate of Seiki and add a scrim for making a marking tape as taught by Moren.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4012000 (Seiki) in view of US 20220204822 A1 (Desai et al.).
Seiki is relied upon above.
Re claims 12-14, Seiki doesn’t teach the specific epoxy as claimed.
Desai teaches the claimed epoxy within overlapping ranges see [90] 185-192 eq. wt., overlapping ratio [18-19], and [71] 30-1000 eq. wt. for similar adhesive for application in auto and wind articles [14].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adhesive of Seiki to include that of Desai for application in auto and wind articles.
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 and the Written Opinion have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights