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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/189452 to Sato et al. (hereinafter “Sato”).
As to claims 1, 5, 8, 13 and 15, Sato discloses a resin foamed sheet 20 comprising a foam layer 21 and a resin layer 22 provided on the foam layer (figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 40 to 100 KPa within the claimed range (25% compressive strength). In particular, the resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 67.4 KPa (table 1, example 2). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.7 mm within the claimed range (foamed sheet). The resin foamed sheet has an expansion ratio 2.0 to 20 (foaming ratio). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 70% or more (closed cell rate). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin while the resin layer comprises a polyolefin resin (resin). Sato also discloses a PSA tape comprising the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive tape for electronic components). The resin layer is a non-foamed layer (example 2). The resin layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 0.1 mm (layer).
Sato does not explicitly disclose the resin foamed sheet having a contact angle of 36 to 95 degrees. However, it appears that the resin foamed sheet meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resin foamed sheet 20 comprises a foam layer 21 and a resin layer 22 provided on the foam layer (figure 3). The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 40 to 100 KPa within the claimed range (25% compressive strength). In particular, the resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 67.4 KPa (table 1, example 1). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.7 mm within the claimed range (foamed sheet). The resin foamed sheet has an expansion ratio 2.0 to 20 (foaming ratio). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 70% or more (closed cell rate). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin while the resin layer comprises a polyolefin resin (resin). A PSA tape comprising the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive tape for electronic components). The resin layer is a non-foamed layer (example 2). The resin layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 0.1 mm (layer).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the contact angle of 36 to 95 degrees would inherently present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claim 2, Sato discloses that the resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.7 mm within the claimed range (foamed sheet).
As to claim 3, Sato discloses that the resin foamed sheet has an expansion ratio 2.0 to 20 (foaming ratio).
As to claim 4, Sato discloses that the resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 70% or more (closed cell rate).
As to claim 7, Sato discloses that the foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin while the resin layer comprises a polyolefin resin (resin).
As to claims 10 and 12, Sato also discloses a PSA tape comprising the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive tape for electronic components). Sato does not explicitly disclose the PSA tape for fixing a wall hanging device, which is an intended use limitation. However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed PSA tape is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed PSA tape from a prior art PSA tape satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
As to claim 11, Sato does not explicitly disclose the resin foamed sheet having a holding time of 5 mins or more, as measured in the hanging test set out in the claim.
However, it appears that the resin foamed sheet meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resin foamed sheet 20 comprises a foam layer 21 and a resin layer 22 provided on the foam layer (figure 3). The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 40 to 100 KPa within the claimed range (25% compressive strength). In particular, the resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 67.4 KPa (table 1, example 1). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.7 mm within the claimed range (foamed sheet). The resin foamed sheet has an expansion ratio 2.0 to 20 (foaming ratio). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 70% or more (closed cell rate). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin while the resin layer comprises a polyolefin resin (resin). A PSA tape comprises the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive tape for electronic components). The resin layer is a non-foamed layer (example 2). The resin layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 0.1 mm (layer).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the holding time of 5 mins or more would inherently present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Claims 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2002/0127389 to Hanada et al. (hereinafter “Hanada”).
As to claims 9 and 16, Sato does not explicitly disclose the resin layer comprising (i) an oxygen content of 3.5% by mass or more and (ii) an acid-modified polyolefin-based resin.
Hanada, however, discloses a foamed polyolefin resin sheet exhibiting a high adhesive strength when laminated with a layer foamed of a saponified ethylene-vinyl ester copolymer or when laminated with a layer of a thermoplastic resin having relatively low polarity such as a polyolefin resin (abstract). The foamed polyolefin resin sheet comprises a polyolefin foam layer, and a non-foamed layer made of a carboxylic acid-modified polyolefin resin provided on the polyolefin foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 27 and 28).
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 carboxylic acid-modified polyolefin resin disclosed in Hanada in the resin layer of Sato motivated by the desire to impart adhesive strength and heat resistance.
As to claim 17, Sato discloses that the resin layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 0.1 mm (layer). This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the thickness of the resin layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the thickness of the resin layer is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the resin layer in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to provide a good balance of mechanical strength and impact absorption properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2017/0291968 to Yachi et al. (hereinafter “Yachi”).
Sato discloses the adhesive tape wherein the adhesive is an acrylic, a rubber or a urethane adhesive (adhesive tape for electronic components). Sato does not explicitly disclose (i) the resin foamed sheet comprising zinc oxide as a decomposition temperature regulator; and (ii) the adhesive tape wherein the adhesive is a silicone-based adhesive.
Yachi, however, discloses an adhesive tape comprising a polyolefin foam sheet and a PSA material provided on at least one surface of the polyolefin foam sheet (paragraph 90). The PSA is an acrylic, a urethane, a rubber or a silicone adhesive (paragraph 92). The polyolefin foam sheet comprises zinc oxide for reducing the decomposition temperature or controlling the decomposition rate of the blowing agent (paragraph 78).
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 zinc oxide disclosed in Yachi in the foam layer of Sato motivated by the desire to reduce the decomposition temperature or control the decomposition rate of the blowing agent.
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 a silicone adhesive for an acrylic or a urethane adhesive because the silicone adhesive, the acrylic adhesive and the urethane adhesive have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent PSAs for the adhesive tapes and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as PSAs for the adhesive tapes will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2021054961 to Matsukawa et al. (hereinafter “Matsukawa”).
As to claims 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, Matsukawa discloses a resin foamed sheet comprising a foam layer and a surface layer provided on each surface of the foam layer (surface layer). The surface layer can be a foam layer or a non-foamed layer (surface layer). The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 84 KPa within the claimed range (table 1, example 1). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.3 to 2.5 mm within the claimed range (thickness of foam sheet). The foam layer has a bubble ratio of 60 to 95%, and thus a foaming ratio of 2.5 to 20 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). The surface layer has a foaming ratio of bubble ratio of 20 to 80%, and thus a foaming ratio of 1.25 to 5 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 90% or more (claims). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin (thickness of foam sheet) while the surface layer comprises an ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer containing 50% by mass or more of an ethylene monomer (surface layer). The surface layer has a thickness of 40 to 400 microns (thickness of surface layer).
Matsukawa also discloses a PSA tape comprising the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive layer).
Matsukawa does not explicitly disclose the resin foamed sheet having a contact angle of 36 to 95 degrees. However, it appears that the resin foamed sheet meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resin foamed sheet comprises a foam layer and a surface layer provided on each surface of the foam layer (surface layer). The surface layer can be a foam layer or a non-foamed layer (surface layer). The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 84 KPa within the claimed range (table 1, example 1). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.3 to 2.5 mm within the claimed range (thickness of foam sheet). The foam layer has a bubble ratio of 60 to 95%, and thus a foaming ratio of 2.5 to 20 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). The surface layer has a foaming ratio of bubble ratio of 20 to 80%, and thus a foaming ratio of 1.25 to 5 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 90% or more (claims). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin (thickness of foam sheet) while the surface layer comprises an ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer containing 50% by mass or more of an ethylene monomer (surface layer). The surface layer has a thickness of 40 to 400 microns (thickness of surface layer). A PSA tape comprises the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive layer).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the contact angle of 36 to 95 degrees would inherently present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claim 2, Matsukawa discloses that the resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.3 to 2.5 mm within the claimed range (thickness of foam sheet).
As to claim 3, Matsukawa discloses that the foam layer has a bubble ratio of 60 to 95%, and thus a foaming ratio of 2.5 to 20 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer).
As to claim 4, Matsukawa discloses that the resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 90% or more (claims).
As to claims 7 and 9, Matsukawa discloses that the foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin (thickness of foam sheet) while the surface layer comprises an ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer containing 50% by mass or more of an ethylene monomer (surface layer).
As shown in the Applicant’s disclosure, the surface contact angle in the range of 36 to 95 degrees and the oxygen atom content of 3.5 % by mass or more are facilitated when the ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer is used as the resin of the surface layer (paragraphs 77 and 78 of published application).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the surface contact angle in the range of 36 to 95 degrees and the oxygen atom content of 3.5 % by mass or more would inherently be present as the surface layer comprises the same ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer as disclosed in the specification of the claimed invention.
As to claims 10 and 12, Matsukawa also discloses a PSA tape comprising the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive layer).
Matsukawa does not explicitly disclose the PSA tape for fixing a wall hanging device, which is an intended use limitation. However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed PSA tape is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed PSA tape from a prior art PSA tape satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
As to claim 11, Matsukawa does not explicitly disclose the resin foamed sheet having a holding time of 5 mins or more, as measured in the hanging test set out in the claim.
However, it appears that the resin foamed sheet meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resin foamed sheet comprises a foam layer and a surface layer provided on each surface of the foam layer (surface layer). The surface layer can be a foam layer or a non-foamed layer (surface layer). The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 84 KPa within the claimed range (table 1, example 1). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.3 to 2.5 mm within the claimed range (thickness of foam sheet). The foam layer has a bubble ratio of 60 to 95%, and thus a foaming ratio of 2.5 to 20 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). The surface layer has a foaming ratio of bubble ratio of 20 to 80%, and thus a foaming ratio of 1.25 to 5 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 90% or more (claims). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin (thickness of foam sheet) while the surface layer comprises an ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer containing 50% by mass or more of an ethylene monomer (surface layer). The surface layer has a thickness of 40 to 400 microns (thickness of surface layer). A PSA tape comprises the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive layer).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the holding time of 5 mins or more would inherently present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa.
Matsukawa discloses that the foam layer has a bubble ratio of 60 to 95%, and thus a foaming ratio of 2.5 to 20 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). Matsukawa also discloses that the surface layer has a bubble ratio of 20 to 80%, and thus a foaming ratio of 1.25 to 5 (Ratio of bubble ratio between foam layer and surface layer). This overlaps the claimed range.
Bubble ratio = (1-1/foaming ratio) x 100%.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foaming ratio of the surface layer in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to achieve the 25% compression strength of 125 kPa or less.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hanada.
Matsukawa does not explicitly disclose the resin layer comprising (i) an oxygen content of 3.5% by mass or more, and (ii) an acid-modified polyolefin-based resin.
Hanada, however, discloses a foamed polyolefin resin sheet exhibiting a high adhesive strength when laminated with a layer foamed of a saponified ethylene-vinyl ester copolymer or when laminated with a layer of a thermoplastic resin having relatively low polarity such as a polyolefin resin (abstract). The foamed polyolefin resin sheet comprises a polyolefin foam layer, and a non-foamed layer made of a carboxylic acid-modified polyolefin resin provided on the polyolefin foam layer (abstract, and paragraphs 27 and 28).
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 carboxylic acid-modified polyolefin resin disclosed in Hanada in the surface layer of Matsukawa motivated by the desire to impart adhesive strength and heat resistance.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yachi.
Matsukawa discloses the adhesive tape wherein the adhesive is an acrylic, a rubber or a urethane adhesive (adhesive tape). Matsukawa does not explicitly disclose (i) the resin foamed sheet comprising zinc oxide as a decomposition temperature regulator; and (ii) the adhesive tape wherein the adhesive is a silicone-based adhesive.
Yachi, however, discloses an adhesive tape comprising a polyolefin foam sheet and a PSA material provided on at least one surface of the polyolefin foam sheet (paragraph 90). The PSA is an acrylic, a urethane, a rubber or a silicone adhesive (paragraph 92). The polyolefin foam sheet comprises zinc oxide for reducing the decomposition temperature or controlling the decomposition rate of the blowing agent (paragraph 78).
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 zinc oxide disclosed in Yachi in the foam layer of Matsukawa motivated by the desire to reduce the decomposition temperature or control the decomposition rate of the blowing agent.
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 a silicone adhesive for an acrylic or a urethane adhesive because the silicone adhesive, the acrylic adhesive and the urethane adhesive have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent PSAs for the adhesive tapes and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as PSAs for the adhesive tapes will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa in view of Hanada as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sato.
Matsukawa discloses that the surface layer has a thickness of 40 to 400 microns (thickness of surface layer). Matsukawa does not explicitly disclose the surface layer having a thickness of 3 to 30 microns.
Sato, however, discloses a resin foamed sheet 20 comprising a foam layer 21 and a resin layer 22 provided on the foam layer (figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 40 to 100 KPa within the claimed range (25% compressive strength). In particular, the resin foamed sheet has a 25% compression strength of 67.4 KPa (table 1, example 2). The resin foamed sheet has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.7 mm within the claimed range (foamed sheet). The resin foamed sheet has an expansion ratio 2.0 to 20 (foaming ratio). The resin foamed sheet has a closed cell content of 70% or more (closed cell rate). The foam layer comprises a polyolefin resin while the resin layer comprises a polyolefin resin (resin). Sato also discloses a PSA tape comprising the resin foamed sheet and a PSA on at least one surface of the resin foamed sheet (adhesive tape for electronic components). The resin layer is a non-foamed layer (example 2). The resin layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 0.1 mm (layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the surface layer disclosed in Matsukawa in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 mm disclosed in Sato, motivated by the desire to provide excellent impact absorbability and flexibility.
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