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 .
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, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luhmann et al. (US 2002/0051875 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Luhmann teaches a tape, a sealing member, (Abstract) comprising a foam backing with the same adhesive composition formed on both sides of foam backing material, such that the adhesive composition forms the first face and a second face facing in the opposite to a direction in which the first faces (Abstract; Claim 1 of Luhmann).
Luhmann teaches the tear strength of the adhesive layer and the foam should be greater than the bond strength (Paragraph 0016-0017; Abstract). Luhmann teaches the tear strength of adhesive should be greater than 1.5 MPa (Paragraph 0041) and the tear strength to peel strength ratio should be greater than 1.2:1. (Paragraph 0043).
Luhmann does not specifically teach the same type of peel strength as F1 and F2. However, Luhmann teaches a broad range, greater than 1.5 Mpa divided by 1.2 relative to the tear strength, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the peel strength taught by Luhmann would overlap the claimed peel strengths using the claimed method of JIS. Luhmann also does not teach the specific tear strength T using the claimed method of measuring T; however, given that Luhmann teaches a broad range for the tear strength, greater than 1.5 Mpa, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the peel strength taught by Luhmann would overlap the claimed tear strength using the claimed method of JIS.
Regarding Claim 3, Luhmann teaches the sealing member comprises a foam (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Luhmann teaches a three-layer sealing member structure. (Claim 1 of Luhmann; Abstract)
Regarding Claim 6, Luhmann teaches adhesive layers forming both the first and second faces of the foam. (Claim 1 of Luhmann; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Luhmann teaches the adhesive layer can comprise filler. (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 8, Luhmann teaches the adhesive layer can be 60 microns in thickness, thus a portion having a thickness of 200 microns from the second face is the foam. (Paragraph 0042) Luhmann teaches the foam has an elastic modulus in tension of 16 Mpa or less. (Claim 1 of Luhmann; Paragraph 0015). 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luhmann in view of Abe et al. (US 2004/0219193 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Luhmann does not specifically teach the tack value of the second face.
Abe teaches an adhesive composition that has tack value of 7 N or less. (Paragraph 0069). Abe does not teach the specific test, but Abe teaches a broad range such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the range taught by Abe to overlap the claimed range. Abe teaches this tack range allows for easier release of the adhesive and makes it easier to position the adhesive sheet. (Paragraph 0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the tack of the adhesive layers, including the second face, of Luhmann to the claimed tack range to ensure easier release and easier positioning.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luhmann in view of Patterson (NPL).
Regarding Claim 4, Luhmann does not specifically teach the foam is a closed-cell foam.
Pattersson teaches closed-cell foam provides the advantage of better sealing and protection against water, dust and wind. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the foam of Luhmann is closed-cell to ensure better protective properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luhmann in view of Otter et al. (US 5,346,766 A)
Regarding Claim 9, Luhmann teaches the peel adhesion, F1 and F2, can be greater than 1.5 Mpa. Luhmann does not specifically teach F11day and F21day.
Otter teaches having adhesives that can reach close to their maximum peel strength after 30 minutes under elevated conditions or after week(Column 1, 10-12). Otter teaches having this increase peel adhesion after 30 minutes or after a week allows the adhesive to be easily adjusted before deciding on the final attachment position. (Column 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the adhesion of Luhmann be greater at 1 day than at initial adhesion. As Luhmann teaches peel adhesion is greater than 1.5 Mpa, then it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have F11day and F21day be greater than F1 and F2 and overlap the claimed ranges of greater than 1.5 Mpa. Luhmann does not specifically teach the same type of peel strength as F1 and F2. However, Luhmann teaches a broad range, greater than 1.5 Mpa divided by 1.2 relative to the tear strength, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the peel strength taught by Luhmann would overlap the claimed peel strengths using the claimed method of JIS
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
Prosecution Insights