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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding Claim 1, the term "is compounded with" is indefinite. It is unclear if it requires the recited layer of adhesive and/or removable film to be bonded to, laminated to, adjacent to, or mixed with the back adhesive. The specification does not define "compounded" or otherwise clarify the intended relationship. Additionally, the recitation that "one side of the back adhesive is compounded with a layer of adhesive" appears to require an adhesive (the recited layer of adhesive) to be provided on or combined with a further adhesive (the back adhesive). However, the specification makes no mention of such an adhesive-on-adhesive arrangement, rendering the scope of the “compounded with” language further unclear because it almost would seem as if the “layer of adhesive” is the back adhesive itself in reading the instant specification. Examiner requests clarification. For purposes of examination, "is compounded with" is interpreted as "is layered on or bonded to," and the limitation is interpreted as one side of the back adhesive having a separate layer of adhesive and/or a film layer thereon.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, the recitations that "the back adhesive is a double-sided adhesive" (Claim 2) and "the back adhesive is a single-sided adhesive" (Claim 3) are indefinite. It is unclear whether these recitations require the adhesive itself to possess differing characteristics, or whether they refer to a double-sided or single-sided adhesive tape, i.e., a carrier bearing adhesive on both faces or on a single face, respectively. The specification supports the latter, referring to the back adhesive as a "double-sided adhesive tape" and as a "double-sided adhesive sticker” as back adhesive [2] (See instant USPgPub 2026/0098184, page 2, paragraphs [0041] and [0042]) and to the product as a "single-sided adhesive sticker" (See instant PgPub, page 1, paragraph [0032]). Accordingly, "double-sided adhesive" and "single-sided adhesive" are interpreted as the back adhesive being is a double-sided adhesive tape and a single-sided adhesive tape, respectively, for purposes of examination and Applicant should amend the claim to reflect this since the adhesive itself is not single or double-sided, but is simply a tacky substance, and it is incorrect to describe it as such. Instead, it is either provided on one or both side of a backing or “sticker.”
Further, Claim 3 really does not make sense because the back adhesive needs removable layers secured to both sides, thus necessarily not being single sided, or a removable layer secured to one side and then another layer of adhesive, thus making it adhesive on that side via the layer of adhesive. If claim 3 requires a single-sided tape with two distinct adhesive layers on it, Examiner notes this is not disclosed in the instant specification. As such, Examiner does not understand the scope of Claim 3 within the context of Claim 1 and requires clarification. Examiner assumes a normal one-sided tape with a normal permanent backing reads on Claim 3 since the anti-adhesive layer is not necessarily “removable” and may me interpreted as a non-adhesive layer. This is how the claim is interpreted for Claim 3. Otherwise, the claim cannot be reconciled with the instant specification as disclosed.
Regarding Claim 4, "the film" lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite. Claim 1, from which Claim 4 depends, does not recite a "film," but recites "a layer of adhesive and/or removable film." It is unclear whether "the film" refers to the removable film, or to some other film such as a carrier or substrate film. Further, Claim 4 defines "the film" as an epoxy resin adhesive applied on a substrate, which again makes unclear if “the film” could be the “layer of adhesive” in claim 1 or a combination of the layer of adhesive and the removable film. The instant specification does not clarify this and Claim 1 leaves the layer of adhesive and removable film as alternatives that need not both be present in the claim. For purposes of examination, "the film" is interpreted as the removable film of Claim 1 or any other added film. Further, since the “removable film” is not required when “a layer of adhesive” is present, the “film” of Claims 4-6 and 8 is interpreted to be optional, since it is never specified as being mandatory. Applicant should spell out PET and PC (polycarbonate) for clarity.
Regarding Claim 5, "the film" is indefinite for the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 4 and is interpreted in the same manner. Additionally, "the long-term temperature resistant range of the film" is indefinite, as neither the claim nor the specification (See page 1, paragraph [0028]) defines what property is measured or the criteria by which "long-term temperature resistant" is assessed, any material that meets claims 4 is assumed to meet claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, "the film" is indefinite for the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 4 and is interpreted in the same manner. Additionally, the recitation "a hook or back adhesive" should recite “back adhesive” in the antecedent.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuta et al. (US 2016/0208142 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Furuta et al. teaches a back adhesive sticker (See Abstract and FIG. 1, note any appliable adhesive material with claimed features is a back adhesive sticker) comprising:
a back adhesive [2] (See page 2, paragraph [0023], and note any appliable adhesive, such as pressure-sensitive adhesive layer [2], is a back adhesive; note base [3], a backing, may also considered part of the “back adhesive”),
wherein one side of the back adhesive [2] is adjacent a removable film [4] (See FIG. 1 and page 2, paragraphs [0023] and [0025] and page 6, paragraphs [0096]-[0100], and note the release liner [4] is an anti-stick polymer film, i.e. release film, and is a removable film as claimed), and
the other side of the back adhesive [2] is adhered with an anti-adhesive layer [4] (See Figs. 1 and 2, and note release liners cover both sides, each being reasonable described as a removable film, an anti-stick layer, and a release film).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Furuta et al. teaches that the back adhesive [2] may be either a double-sided adhesive (See Figs. 1-2) or a single-sided adhesive tape (See Fig. 3), expressly disclosing that the sheet "may be a double-sided pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet having adhesive surfaces on both surfaces of the sheet or may be a one-side pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet having an adhesive surface on only one surface thereof" (See page 1, paragraph [0021]). Note for Claim 3, the base [3] is an “anti-adhesive layer” since it is not itself adhesive.
Regarding Claims 4-6 and 8, as above, the removable film is not required if a “layer of adhesive” is present on the back adhesive. Since Fig. 2 in Furata et al. illustrates a back adhesive, i.e. one adhesive layer [2] and back base [3], adjacent another adhesive layer [2], this reads on these claims, the one adhesive [2] and base [3] the back adhesive and the other adhesive [2] the layer of adhesive thereon, thus obviating the need for a film. Further, Furata et al. teaches the base [3] may be two or more materials including PET/PC and epoxy (See page 6, paragraph [0091]), which may be in multiple layers (See page 6, paragraph [0094]), thus inherently having the qualities of Claim 5. The removable film [4] may be on the back adhesive [2], as is one alternative in Claim 7 as shown in Fig. 1, and they have the same area as clearly shown in the figures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Krull et al. (US 2020/0224060) teaching a “core” providing stiffening for a back adhesive, such as to secure a hook.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights