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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 9 and 15-25 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 were canceled in the amendment filed 12/30/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 9 and 15, and newly added claims 16-25, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2019/049355, filed 12/17/2019, which claims priority to Japanese Application Number 2019-099678, filed 5/28/2019, as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 4/25/2024. Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged and the effective filing date of claims 9 and 15-25 is 5/28/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2021, 12/07/2021, 3/10/2023, and 6/7/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS’s have been considered by the examiner.
It is noted that in the IDS dated 3/10/2023, the application number for Foreign Patent Document CN109715388A was incorrectly labeled in the IDS, as the provided foreign reference document shows application number CN109715355A. Since the foreign reference document has been provided, this reference has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Examiner notes that the section of the specification for “Cross-reference to related applications” as described in MPEP § 608.01(a) is missing. Although it is not required, it is suggested to include a reference to the priority of the instant application, a 371 of PCT/JP2019/049355, which claims priority to Japanese Application Number 2019-099678 (See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the phrase “three-dimensional FEM analysis models” in line 7 of the claim, which should be corrected to “three-dimensional Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis models” for clarity, as this is the first recitation of the abbreviation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite both (1) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations) and (2) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Step 1:
In the instant application, claims 9 and 16-24 are directed towards a method, which falls into one of the categories of statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One:
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong One). The following instant claims recite limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exceptions:
Claim 9 recites mathematical concepts (i.e., finite element analysis and a calculation of a load applied over an area) in “constructing, based on the test data, a plurality of two-dimensional or three-dimensional FEM analysis models of the adhesion complex with varied adhesives” and “performing, on each of the plurality of analysis models, a simulation in which a tensile shear load is applied in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive used in the analysis model”; and a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the tensile stresses to select an adhesive) in “selecting, from the adhesives, an adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material based on tensile stresses generated in the analysis models in a course of the simulation and locations where the tensile stresses are generated”.
Claim 16 recites a mental process (i.e., an comparison between the maximum and allowable tensile stress values) in “wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a comparison between a maximum tensile stress in each of the one material, the other material, and the test adhesive of the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation and an allowable tensile stress of each of the one material, the other material and the test adhesive”.
Claim 17 recites a mental process (i.e., a comparison between the maximum and allowable tensile stress values) in “wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a comparison between a maximum tensile stress in the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation and an allowable tensile stress of a member having a location where the maximum tensile stress is generated”.
Claims 18 and 22 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the maximum deformation value in the simulation) in “wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a maximum amount of deformation in the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation”.
Claims 19 and 23 recite a mental process (i.e., a comparison between the maximum and allowable deformation values) in “wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a comparison between an allowable amount of deformation of each of the analysis models and the maximum amount of deformation”.
Claims 20 and 24 recite a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the tensile elastic modulus value) in “the one material has a tensile elastic modulus of 500 MPa or greater and 2000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 10 MPa or greater and 30 MPa or less”, “the other material has a tensile elastic modulus of 2000 MPa or greater and 10000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 30 MPa or greater and 150 MPa or less”, and “the adhesives have a tensile elastic modulus of 1 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 3 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less”; and a mental process (i.e., a comparison of two tensile elastic modulus values) in “the tensile elastic modulus of the other material is two-times or greater the tensile elastic modulus of the one material”.
Claim 21 recites a mental process (i.e., an observation of the components) in “wherein a main component of the one material and the other material is polyurethane”; and a mental process (i.e., an observation of the adhesive composition) in “wherein the adhesive is a two-part polyurethane-based adhesive comprising a main agent containing a urethane prepolymer and a curing agent containing a polyol”.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification, and are determined to be directed to mental processes that in the simplest embodiments are not too complex to practically perform in the human mind. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)). The following independent claims recite limitations that equate to additional elements:
Claim 9 recites “acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place”; and “interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member”.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 9 of (i) acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place; and (ii) interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member. Limitation (i) equates to insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering because this limitation gathers data before the recited judicial exceptions of constructing and simulating the FEM model, and selecting the adhesives based on the model results (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)). Limitation (ii) equates to an extra-solution “apply it” step because the limitation is used to physically adhere the materials to the adhesive, without providing details such as the materials, tensile moduli, or tensile strengths (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). As such, claims 9 and 16-24 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The instant independent claims recite same additional elements described in Step 2A, Prong Two above.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 9 of (i) acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place. These limitations equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as a WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 9 of (ii) interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member. This limitation when viewed individually and in combination, is a WURC limitation as taught by Naito et al. (The effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength of polyimide adhesive. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 36: 77-85 (2012)). Naito et al. teaches a method for assembly of the complexes, including steps of preparing the two adherends using sandblast treatment, cleaning and degreasing, drying, applying the adhesive, degassing, and autoclave curing (limitation (ii)) (Pg. 78, Col. 1, Para. 4 – Col. 2, Para. 3 and Pg. 79, Fig. 3).
These additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims 9 and 16-24 are not patent eligible.
Examiner notes that claims 15 and 25 integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 15 and 25 recite the limitations “wherein a main component of the one material and the other material is polyurethane” and “wherein the adhesive is a two-part polyurethane-based adhesive comprising a main agent containing a urethane prepolymer and a curing agent containing a polyol”. These limitations recite specific materials and adhesives, with specific tensile elastic moduli and tensile strengths. These limitations are then applied in a practical application in the step of “interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member”. This is similar to the claims in Diamond v. Diehr, where Diehr recited specific limitations to open the rubber press automatically when the cure time calculated using the Arrhenius equation matches the elapsed time (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
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 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 9, 16-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al. (Adhesive Selection for Single Lap Bonded Joints: Experimentation and Advanced Techniques for Strength Prediction. The Journal of Adhesion. 91: 841-862 (2015); published 6/17/2015; cited in the IDS dated 11/26/2021) in view of Ye et al. (3D explicit finite element analysis of tensile failure behavior in adhesive-bonded composite single-lap joints. Composite Structures. 201: 261-275 (2018); published 6/15/2018) and Naito et al. (The effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength of polyimide adhesive. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 36: 77-85 (2012); published 3/22/2012).
Regarding claim 9, Fernandes et al. teaches a combined experimental and computational finite element method (FEM) to evaluate the suitability of a family of adhesives for specific joint geometries (Abstract). Fernandes et al. further teaches that the FEM numerical analysis was used to predict the strength of the single lap joints. The FEM model includes Cohesive Zone Modeling (CZM) and Extended Finite Element Modeling (XFEM) modules. The adherends were modeled as elasto-plastic solids with an approximated curve to the real σ-ε curve of the aluminum. The adhesive was modeled with CZM elements, or solid elements with enriched formulation for the XFEM. The joints were modeled as two-dimensional, with plane-strain solid elements (i.e., constructing, based on the test data, a plurality of two-dimensional or three-dimensional FEM analysis models of the adhesion complex) (Pg. 847, Para. 2). The adhesives have varying overlap length (L0) (i.e., with varied adhesives) (Abstract). Fernandes et al. further teaches that the restraining and loading conditions mirrored the real testing conditions, and consisted of clamping the joint at one edge and applying a vertical restraint and tensile displacement at the opposite edge. In the CZM analysis, the adhesive was modeled by the continuum approach, with a single row of cohesive elements and a traction-separation law including the adhesive layer stiffness. For the XFEM models, the adhesive layer was modeled by the same elements used for the adherends, considering one layer of solid elements. Some analyses were performed until failure of the adhesive (i.e., performing, on each of the plurality of analysis models, a simulation in which a tensile shear load is applied in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive used in the analysis model) (Pg. 848, Para. 1). Fernandes et al. further teaches that the finite element model was applied to single lap joints between aluminum adherends to provide a tool for adhesive selection. A peel and shear stress analysis is carried out at the adhesive mid-thickness. The finite element stress analysis enabled detailed justification of the distinct behavioral differences in the adhesives (i.e., selecting, from the adhesives, an adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material based on tensile stresses generated in the analysis models in a course of the simulation and locations where the tensile stresses are generated) (Pg. 860, Para. 1 and Pg. 851, Para. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Fernandes et al. teaches that the meshes for the stress analysis models are highly refined, with 0.02 mm x 0.02 mm elements in the adhesive layer, to accurately capture the peak stresses at the overlap ends. A total of 120 elements were used in the adherends' thickness direction for all models. Between 350 and 1400 solid elements were considered in the adhesive layer length (from the smallest to the biggest value of L0) (Pg. 847, Para. 2 – Pg. 848, Para. 1). Fernandes et al. further teaches that the XFEM method introduces maximum principal stress and maximum principal strain criteria, defined as a relationship between the current and allowable maximum principal stress/strain (i.e., a maximum and allowable tensile strength in each of the three materials) (Pg. 849, Para. 2 – Pg. 850, Para. 1). The stress distributions are analyzed in the adhesive (Pg. 852, Fig. 5-6) and in the adherends, where the stress gradients increase with L0 due to the increasing longitudinal strains in the adherends (i.e., based on a comparison between a maximum tensile stress in each of the one material, the other material, and the test adhesive of the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation and an allowable tensile stress of each of the one material, the other material and the test adhesive) (Pg. 853, Para. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Fernandes et al. teaches that the XFEM method introduces maximum principal stress and maximum principal strain criteria, defined as a relationship between the current and allowable maximum principal stress/strain (Pg. 849, Para. 2 – Pg. 850, Para. 1). The stress distributions at the adhesive mid-thickness from the simulations are shown in Fig. 5 and 6, with a maximum stress peaking toward the overlap edges (i.e., based on a comparison between a maximum tensile stress in the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation and an allowable tensile stress of a member having a location where the maximum tensile stress is generated) (Pg. 852, Para. 1 and Pg. 852, Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Fernandes et al. teaches that the XFEM model is based on the establishment of phantom nodes that subdivide elements cut by a crack and simulate separation between the newly created sub-elements. Propagation of a crack along an arbitrary path is made possible by the use of these phantom nodes that initially have exactly the same coordinates than the real nodes and that are completely constrained to the real nodes up to damage initiation (i.e., deformation). From this point, each pair of real/phantom node of the cracked element is allowed to separate according to a suitable cohesive law up to failure (i.e., a maximum deformation) (i.e., based on a maximum amount of deformation in the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation) (Pg. 850, Para. 4 – Pg. 851, Para. 1).
Regarding claims 19 and 23, Fernandes et al. teaches the maximum amount of deformation as described for claims 18 and 22 above. Fernandes et al. further teaches that the peak stresses are responsible for a significant strength reduction of bonded joints. This is due to the differential deformation of each one of the adherends along the overlap, from their free overlap edge towards the other overlap edge (i.e., deformation of the edges without failure is an allowable amount of deformation) (i.e., based on a comparison between an allowable amount of deformation of each of the analysis models and the maximum amount of deformation) (Pg. 852, Para. 1).
Fernandes et al. does not teach acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place; and interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member.
Regarding claim 9, Ye et al. teaches that the tensile failure behavior in adhesive-bonded composite single-lap joints with different overlap lengths is investigated through experiments and various three-dimensional explicitly finite element methods (Abstract). Ye et al. further teaches that specimens were made up of adherends and adhesive, and adherends were constituted by fiber-reinforced composite laminates consisting of fibers and polymer matrix. The adherend consisted of eight layers, and the average thickness of the adhesive layer was 0.02 mm. The material of the adherend is T300/QY8911 (carbon fiber/BMI) with quasi-isotropic lay-ups ([45/0/−45/90]S or [−45/0/45/90]S), and the material of the adhesive is J116B. The same axial tensile test of each specimen was performed to obtain reliable experimental results (Pg. 262, Col. 2, Para. 3-4). The failure morphology of adhesive-bonded composite single-lap joints. The failure modes of the three groups are different, and can be divided into three types: Mode A (adhesive failure), Mode B (mixed failure) and Mode C (delamination, fiber pull-out and fiber fracture) (i.e., acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place) (Pg. 263, Col. 1, Para. 2 and Pg. 264, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Naito et al. teaches the method of preparing the specimens, including steps of preparing the two adherends using sandblast treatment, cleaning and degreasing, drying, applying the adhesive, degassing, and autoclave curing (i.e., interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member) (Pg. 78, Col. 1, Para. 4-Col. 2, Para. 3 and Pg. 79, Fig. 3).
An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention if some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Fernandes et al. evaluates the suitability of adhesives in different joint geometries using experimental and finite element simulations (Fernandes et al., Abstract). Ye et al. discloses a method for evaluating tensile failure behavior in adhesive-bonded single-lap joints using both experimental and finite element methods (Ye et al., Abstract). Naito et al. evaluates the effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength using finite element methods (Naito et al., Abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the method for evaluating adhesive suitability using finite element methods shown by Fernandes et al. with the teachings of Ye et al. and Naito et al. because the model of Ye et al. improves the efficiency and accuracy of 3D explicit models in the prediction of failure morphology, without convergence issues (Ye et al., Pg. 272, Col. 2, Para. 2-4). Additionally, the fabrication process of Naito et al. shows a successful layer-by-layer technique, with drying and autoclave curing, to ensure there are no visible micro-sized voids in the adhesive (Naito et al., Pg. 85, Col. 1, Para. 1-2). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Fernandes et al., Ye et al., and Naito et al. with reasonable expectation of success due to the same nature of the problem to be solved, since all three are drawn toward a method for evaluating adhesives using finite element methods. Therefore, regarding claims 9, 16-19, and 22-23, the instant invention is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2142).
Claims 20-21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al. in view of Ye et al. and Naito et al. as applied to claims 9, 16-19, and 22-23 above, and further in view of Meredith et al. (The Interplay of Modulus, Strength, and Ductility in Adhesive Design Using Biomimetic Polymer Chemistry. Adv. Funct. Mater. 25: 5057–5065 (2015); published 7/14/2015).
Regarding claims 20 and 24, Fernandes et al. further teaches that two adhesives have tensile yield strengths of 12.63 and 13.20 MPa (i.e., wherein the adhesives have a tensile strength of 3 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less) (Pg. 846, Table 1).
Regarding claims 20 and 24, Ye et al. further teaches that the tensile elastic modulus of the adherend is 8.8 GPa and the tensile strength is 55.5 MPa (i.e., the other material has a tensile elastic modulus of 2000 MPa or greater and 10000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 30 MPa or greater and 150 MPa or less) (Pg. 262, Table 2).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, Fernandes et al. teaches that one of the adhesives studied is ductile polyurethane Sikaforce® 7888 (i.e., the adhesive is a two-part polyurethane-based adhesive comprising a main agent containing a urethane prepolymer and a curing agent containing a polyol) (Pg. 845, Para. 3).
Fernandes et al. in view of Ye et al. and Naito et al., as applied to claims 9, 16-19, and 22-23 above, does not teach wherein the one material has a tensile elastic modulus of 500 MPa or greater and 2000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 10 MPa or greater and 30 MPa or less; wherein the tensile elastic modulus of the other material is two-times or greater the tensile elastic modulus of the one material; wherein the adhesives have a tensile elastic modulus of 1 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less; and a main component of the one material and the other material is polyurethane.
Regarding claims 20 and 24, Meredith et al. teaches the analysis of a several polymers under mechanical load to design a polymer with balanced strength and ductility (Abstract). Meredith et al. further teaches polymers that have an elastic modulus of 1.3 GPa (Pg. 5061, Table 2), and tensile strength of 27 MPa (i.e., wherein the one material has a tensile elastic modulus of 500 MPa or greater and 2000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 10 MPa or greater and 30 MPa or less) (Pg. 5062, Table 3). Meredith et al. further teaches the comparison to Ye et al.'s tensile elastic modulus of 8.8GPa is roughly ~6.7x greater than the tensile elastic modulus of the polymer (1.3GPa) of Meredith et al. (i.e., wherein the tensile elastic modulus of the other material is two-times or greater the tensile elastic modulus of the one material). Meredith et al. further teaches the elastic modulus of several adhesive polymers with values of 12 MPa (i.e., wherein the adhesives have a tensile elastic modulus of 1 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less) (Pg. 5061,Table 2).
Regarding claims 21, and 25, Meredith et al. teaches the use of polyurethane based polymers as a substrate in adhesion tests (i.e., wherein a main component of the one material and the other material is polyurethane) (Pg. 5061, Col. 1 , Para. 2 – Col. 2, Para. 1).
Therefore, regarding claims 20-21 and 24-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for evaluating adhesive suitability using finite element methods shown by Fernandes et al in view of Ye et al. and Naito et al. with the teachings of Meredith et al. because taking a systematic approach to adhesive design, by balancing the material strength and ductility in relation to the substrate modulus, yields more robust joints (Meredith et al., Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Fernandes et al. in view of Ye et al. and Naito et al. with Meredith et al. with reasonable expectation of success due to the same nature of the problem to be solved, since both are drawn towards a method for evaluating materials under mechanical load. Therefore, regarding claims 20-21 and 24-25, the instant invention is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2142).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al. (Adhesive Selection for Single Lap Bonded Joints: Experimentation and Advanced Techniques for Strength Prediction. The Journal of Adhesion. 91: 841-862 (2015); published 6/17/2015; cited in the IDS dated 11/26/2021) in view of Ye et al. (3D explicit finite element analysis of tensile failure behavior in adhesive-bonded composite single-lap joints. Composite Structures. 201: 261-275 (2018); published 6/15/2018), Naito et al. (The effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength of polyimide adhesive. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 36: 77-85 (2012); published 3/22/2012), and Meredith et al. (The Interplay of Modulus, Strength, and Ductility in Adhesive Design Using Biomimetic Polymer Chemistry. Adv. Funct. Mater. 25: 5057–5065 (2015); published 7/14/2015).
Regarding claim 15, Fernandes et al. teaches the limitations of constructing, based on the test data, a plurality of two-dimensional or three-dimensional FEM analysis models of the adhesion complex with varied adhesives; performing, on each of the plurality of analysis models, a simulation in which a tensile shear load is applied in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive used in the analysis model; selecting, from the adhesives, an adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material based on tensile stresses generated in the analysis models in a course of the simulation and locations where the tensile stresses are generated; wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a comparison between a maximum tensile stress in each of the one material, the other material, and the test adhesive of the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation and an allowable tensile stress of each of the one material, the other material and the test adhesive; wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a maximum amount of deformation in the analysis model generated in the course of the simulation; wherein the adhesive for bonding the one material and the other material is selected, among the adhesives, based on a comparison between an allowable amount of deformation of each of the analysis models and the maximum amount of deformation; wherein the adhesives have a tensile strength of 3 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less; and the adhesive is a two-part polyurethane-based adhesive comprising a main agent containing a urethane prepolymer and a curing agent containing a polyol as described for claims 9, 16, and 18-21 above.
Fernandes et al. does not teach acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place; interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member; wherein the one material has a tensile elastic modulus of 500 MPa or greater and 2000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 10 MPa or greater and 30 MPa or less; wherein the tensile elastic modulus of the other material is two-times or greater the tensile elastic modulus of the one material; wherein the adhesives have a tensile elastic modulus of 1 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less; and a main component of the one material and the other material is polyurethane.
Regarding claim 15, Ye et al. teaches the limitation of acquiring test data by subjecting an adhesion complex, obtained by integrally bonding one material and an other material that are heterogeneous using test adhesive, to a shear test, in which a tensile shear load is applied to the adhesion complex in a direction that causes shear deformation in the test adhesive, until adhesive failure takes place as described for claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 15, Naito et al. teaches the limitation of interposing the selected adhesive between one member made of the one material and an other member made of the other material to integrate the one member and the other member as described for claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 15, Meredith et al. teaches the limitations of wherein the one material has a tensile elastic modulus of 500 MPa or greater and 2000 MPa or less and a tensile strength of 10 MPa or greater and 30 MPa or less; wherein the tensile elastic modulus of the other material is two-times or greater the tensile elastic modulus of the one material; wherein the adhesives have a tensile elastic modulus of 1 MPa or greater and 25 MPa or less; and wherein a main component of the one material and the other material is polyurethane as described for claims 20-21 above.
An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention if some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Fernandes et al. evaluates the suitability of adhesives in different joint geometries using experimental and finite element simulations (Fernandes et al., Abstract). Ye et al. discloses a method for evaluating tensile failure behavior in adhesive-bonded single-lap joints using both experimental and finite element methods (Ye et al., Abstract). Naito et al. evaluates the effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength using finite element methods (Naito et al., Abstract). Meredith et al. discloses a method evaluating the mechanical properties and mechanical load of various polymers (Meredith et al., Abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the method for evaluating adhesive suitability using finite element methods shown by Fernandes et al. with the teachings of Ye et al., Naito et al., and Meredith et al. because the model of Ye et al. improves the efficiency and accuracy of 3D explicit models in the prediction of failure morphology, without convergence issues (Ye et al., Pg. 272, Col. 2, Para. 2-4). Additionally, the fabrication process of Naito et al. shows a successful layer-by-layer technique, with drying and autoclave curing, to ensure there are no visible micro-sized voids in the adhesive (Naito et al., Pg. 85, Col. 1, Para. 1-2). Furthermore, taking the systematic approach to adhesive design, disclosed by Meredith et al., by balancing the material strength and ductility in relation to the substrate modulus, yields more robust joints (Meredith et al., Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Fernandes et al., Ye et al., Naito et al., and Meredith et al. with reasonable expectation of success due to the same nature of the problem to be solved, since all three are drawn toward a method for evaluating materials under mechanical load. Therefore, regarding claim 15, the instant invention is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2142).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA P SANFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6504. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571)272-9047. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Lori A. Clow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687