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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 2 and 5 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-9 is/are pending and is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, filed on 6/17/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN101290473, herein Yang, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) in view of Abe et al (US 20160131974 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, Yang teaches photosensitive resin composition comprising: 6% to 60% by weight of a photocurable resin, 0.05% to 10% by weight of a photo initiator and 32% to 85% by weight of an organic solvent [0073], in order to improve adhesion [0023], which comprising: acrylic resin containing both unsaturated groups capable of free radical polymerization [0071] such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate [0023] which is multifunctional (meth)acrylate and reads on the ethylenically unsaturated free radical polymerizable compound; photoinitiators, 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyldiphenylphosphine oxide [0048]; 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-p-hydroxyethyl ether phenyl acetone [0056] both read on the free radical initiators; 32%-85% organic solvent [0076], isopropanol [0047] which reads on volatile organic solvent.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized amounts 0.05% to 10% by weight of a photo initiator with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have been motivated to do as Yang discloses that such amounts are suitable for the invention.
Yang does not teach that the monomeric multifunctional (meth)acrylate comprises a difunctional epoxy (meth)acrylate and/or a urethane di(meth)acrylate.
In the same field of endeavor, Abe teaches a photosensitive resin composition for cured film [abstract], comprising photopolymerizable compounds including polyfunctional monomers, such as bisphenol A diglycidyl ether diacrylate [0083-0084].
Since Yang and Abe recognized dipropylene glycol diacrylate and bisphenol A diglycidyl ether diacrylate are equivalent for the same purpose of being used as photocurable resin in similar film product, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to either substitute dipropylene glycol diacrylate with bisphenol A diglycidyl ether diacrylate or combine dipropylene glycol diacrylate and bisphenol A diglycidyl ether diacrylate in Yang’s composition. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether diacrylate reads on the claimed difunctional epoxy (meth)acrylate.
Regarding Claim 8, Yang teaches photosensitive resin composition is used to improving the toughness and strength of the film layer or the spacer [0071], which reads on adhesion-promoting interlayer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Abe as applied in the claim 1 above, further in the view of Sawant (US20060270796, herein Sawant).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang in view of Abe teaches the adhesion-promoting composition as set forth above in claim 1. Yang teaches acrylic resin containing both unsaturated groups capable of free radical polymerization [0071] such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate [0023] which is multifunctional (meth)acrylate and reads on the ethylenically unsaturated free radical polymerizable compound. Yang is silent on the polythiol, however, Sawant teaches polymeric polythiols [0033]. Yang and Sawant are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the photocurable adhesion resin composition formation toward processability and flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of add the polymeric polythiols [0033] into the composition, and the motivation to do so would have been the curable compositions of the present invention can exhibit good low temperature flexibility [0104].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Abe as applied to claim 1 above, further in the view of Sawant (US20060270796, herein Sawant) and Virnelson (US20170044399, herein Virnelson).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang in view of Abe teaches the adhesion-promoting composition as set forth above in claim 1. Yang does not teach the drying the applied adhesion-promoting composition, however, Sawant teaches the evacuation of the reaction mixture at 70° C./7-8 mmHg for 0.5 hour [0110] indicating drying of the adhesion composition. Yang and Sawant are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the photocurable adhesion resin composition formation toward processability and flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of add the evacuation of the reaction mixture at 70° C./7-8 mmHg for 0.5 hour [0110] into the product formation, and the motivation to do so would have been the lead to the composition product exhibit good low temperature flexibility [0104].
Yang is silent on sulfur-containing sealant layer; however, Virnelson teaches sulfur-containing prepolymer for sealant applications [0190]. Virnelson further teaches that following application to the curable coating, the barrier coating can be exposed to UV radiation to cure the barrier coating [0195] indicating as claimed free radical polymerization of the sulfur-containing sealant composition to cure the sulfur-containing sealant composition. Yang and Virnelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the photocurable acrylate-based adhesion resin composition formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sulfur-containing prepolymer for sealant applications [0190]. following application to the curable coating, the barrier coating can be exposed to UV radiation to cure the barrier coating [0195] into the product formation, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product process with desired properties of “cured sealants prepared using the sulfur-containing prepolymers maintain acceptable properties such as adhesion, tensile strength, elongation, and hardness, following exposure to aviation fuel and/or high temperature” [0069].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
