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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated July 13, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
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 – 7, 9, and 11 – 15 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 phrase “wherein the multilayer sheet further comprises an additional adhesive layer disposed on another surface of the elastic layer opposite to the surface of the elastic layer” in claim 1 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is trying to be claimed with the above the phrase as the layer has more than two sides, or surfaces.
The phrase “the adhesive layer is a silicone-based adhesive layer” in claim 1 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the above phrase which adhesive is silicone based.
Claims 2 – 7, 9, and 11 – 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on the above rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 states “the adhesive layer is selected from the group consisting of an acrylic-based adhesive layer, a urethane-based adhesive layer, and a silicone-based adhesive layer”, while claim one has been amended to state “the adhesive layer is a silicone-based adhesive layer”, which is narrower than the limitation of claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 – 7, 9, and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (WO 99/28124) in view of Jang et al. (WO 2021/153914 A1).
This rejection is over the Jang et al. (WO 2021/153914 A1) because this reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, for convenience, the column and line numbers of the English language equivalent US Patent No. 11,969978 to Jang et al. will be cited below.
Hyde et al. disclose a multilayer sheet (Abstract) comprising an elastic layer (Page 13 line 19 to Page 14, line 11) and an adhesive layer disposed on a surface of the elastic layer (Page 11, line 13 to Page 13, line 12), wherein the multilayer sheet further comprises an additional adhesive layer disposed on another surface of the elastic layer opposite to the surface of the elastic layer (Page 3, lines 6 – 8, Page 6, lines 7 – 8; Page 8, lines 10 – 12), wherein the adhesive layer is a silicone-based adhesive layer (Page 13, lines 9 – 10), and a thickness of the adhesive layer is more than 1 um and 20 um or less (Page 9, lines 19 – 24) , and wherein a thickness of the elastic layer is 10 um to 500 um (Page 7, lines 8 – 10) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 9, a thickness of the multilayer sheet is 10 µm or more (Page 7, lines 8 – 10). Regarding claim 14, the elastic layer comprises polyether block amide comprising a rigid region and a soft region comprising polyether (Page 13, line 19 to Page 14, line 11). For claim 15, the adhesive layer is selected from the group consisting of an acrylic-based adhesive layer (Page 12, lines 23 – 31) and a silicone-based adhesive layer (Page 13, lines 9 – 10). However, Hyde et al. fails to disclose a storage modulus of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C is 10 MPa to 2,000 MPa, a silicone-based adhesive layer having an adhesive force per unit thickness (1 um) after curing of 0.8 N/inch or more, the RSM (Relative Storage Modulus) value of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C according to Equation 1 below is 1 to 200: [Equation 1] RSM=SME/SMB where, in the Equation 1, SME is a storage modulus of the elastic layer and SMB is a storage modulus of the adhesive layer, an absolute value of the storage modulus of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C minus a storage modulus value of the multilayer sheet measured at 60 °C is 1,000 MPa or less, an absolute value of a storage modulus value of the multilayer sheet measured at -40 °C minus the storage modulus value of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C is 1,500 MPa or less, a storage modulus of the elastic layer measured at 20 °C is 10 MPa to 3,000 MPa, a storage modulus of the adhesive layer measured at 20 °C is 1 MPa to 50 MPa, an adhesive force of the adhesive layer after curing is 2 N/inch or more, the multilayer sheet further comprises a transparent layer disposed on the adhesive layer and a coating layer disposed on the transparent layer, the multilayer sheet further comprises a release film disposed on a surface of the adhesive layer, and the release film comprises a release layer disposed on the surface of the adhesive layer and a release base layer disposed on a surface of the release layer.
Jang et al. teach a multilayer sheet (Figures; Abstract) comprising an elastic layer (Column 2, line 42 to Column 17, line 26; Figures, #100) and an adhesive layer disposed on a surface of the elastic layer (Figure 2a and b, #130; Column 3, lines 14 – 15), a thickness of the multilayer sheet is 10 µm or more (Column 9, lines 29 – 33), the multilayer sheet further comprises an additional adhesive layer disposed on another surface of the elastic layer opposite to the surface of the elastic layer (Column 3, lines 14 – 15), the multilayer sheet further comprises a transparent layer disposed on the adhesive layer and a coating layer disposed on the transparent layer (Figure 2C, #120 and 140; Column 19 line 65 to Column 20, line 2), the multilayer sheet further comprises a release film disposed on a surface of the adhesive layer (Figure 2a, #150), and the release film comprises a release layer disposed on the surface of the adhesive layer and a release base layer disposed on a surface of the release layer (Column 19, line 43 – 51) for the purpose of having a multilayer film with the desired properties (Page 1, lines 11 – 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a release liner disposed on the adhesive of Hyde et al. in order have a multilayer film with the desired properties as taught by Jang et al.
With regard to the limitations “a storage modulus of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C is 10 MPa to 2,000 MPa, a silicone-based adhesive layer having an adhesive force per unit thickness (1 um) after curing of 0.8 N/inch or more, the RSM (Relative Storage Modulus) value of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C according to Equation 1 below is 1 to 200: [Equation 1] RSM=SME/SMB where, in the Equation 1, SME is a storage modulus of the elastic layer and SMB is a storage modulus of the adhesive layer, an absolute value of the storage modulus of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C minus a storage modulus value of the multilayer sheet measured at 60 °C is 1,000 MPa or less, an absolute value of a storage modulus value of the multilayer sheet measured at -40 °C minus the storage modulus value of the multilayer sheet measured at 20 °C is 1,500 MPa or less, a storage modulus of the elastic layer measured at 20 °C is 10 MPa to 3,000 MPa, a storage modulus of the adhesive layer measured at 20 °C is 1 MPa to 50 MPa, an adhesive force of the adhesive layer after curing is 2 N/inch or more”, although Hyde et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations with regard to storage modulus and adhesive force, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. polyether block amide comprising a rigid region and a soft region comprising polyether having measured storage modulus at many temperatures (Page 13 line 19 to Page 14, line 11), overlapping thicknesses of the film layers (Page 9, lines 19 – 24; Page 7, lines 8 – 10), an adhesive layer made of silicone or acrylic (Page 12, lines 23 – 31; Page 13, lines 9 – 10), wherein the film is designed to have desired properties (Abstract)) and in the similar production steps (i.e. melt processing (Page 3, lines 18 – 23) used to produce the multilayer film. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Hyde et al. describe forming multilayer constructions using silicone adhesives, but nowhere specify, isolate, or direct one of ordinary skill in the art to a silicone composition that yields an intensity of at least 0.8 N/inch of structural adhesion per individual micro-unit of layer depth.”, although Hyde et al. does not explicitly teach “a silicone composition that yields an intensity of at least 0.8 N/inch of structural adhesion per individual micro-unit of layer depth”, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. polyether block amide comprising a rigid region and a soft region comprising polyether having measured storage modulus at many temperatures (Page 13 line 19 to Page 14, line 11), overlapping thicknesses of the film layers (Page 9, lines 19 – 24; Page 7, lines 8 – 10), an adhesive layer made of silicone or acrylic (Page 12, lines 23 – 31; Page 13, lines 9 – 10), wherein the film is designed to have desired properties (Abstract)) and in the similar production steps (i.e. melt processing (Page 3, lines 18 – 23) used to produce the multilayer film. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “The applied art does not disclose or suggest adhesive layers on both opposing surfaces of the elastic layer.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hyde et al. clearly states in multiple locations that the multilayer structure may be a double-sided adhesive article (Page 3, lines 6 – 8, Page 6, lines 7 – 8; Page 8, lines 10 – 12).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Hyde, for its part, describes an internal layer that is thinner than the claimed range and thus teaches away from, rather than toward, the recited 10 µm to 500 µm”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hyde et al. clearly states the elastic layer is 10 µm to 500 µm (Page 7, lines 8 – 10).
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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights