DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
The communication dated 11/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are pending with claims 12-14 being withdrawn from further consideration.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 recites "a frame" and "a component", in addition to the previously recited frame and components from claim 1. The claim should be amended to specific whether these recitation are included in the previously recited frame and component, or are distinct structures.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The recitation "means of a hold-down device" in claim 20 is interpreted to invoke 112(f). The corresponding structure imparted from the specification can be found on page 15, or can be an equivalent structure.
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 1-7,10-11, and 15-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one component" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 17 recite the limitation "the other component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
All claims depending therefrom are rejected for the same reason(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954) in view of HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, and ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI.
Regarding claim 1, KEUERLEBER teaches: A method for bonding components of a PEM fuel cell with a frame and/or amongst one another (KEUERLEBER teaches bonding components of a fuel cell [0001-0002]), the method comprising: applying an adhesive curable by electromagnetic radiation in the range of visible light or UV to the frame and/or the at least one component (KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is curable with the help of UV radiation [0019]. KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is applied to at least one component [0012]), wherein the adhesive is activated by the electromagnetic radiation and heated after the frame and/or the components are brought into contact or the frame and/or the components are brought into contact and the adhesive is exposed to electromagnetic radiation for activating and heating (KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is applied to at least one area on at least one component and is then irradiated [0012]); wherein the heating reduces the viscosity of the adhesive before it is finally cured (KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is irradiated at least to adjust its viscosity [0012]. KEUERLEBER teaches the viscosity of the adhesive is adjusted, preferably reduced [0021].), . . . .
KEUERLEBER is silent as to: and wherein the adhesive is a cationic epoxy which contains water; and wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by a hold-down device, wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation; and the hold-down device comprises a lower part and an upper part, which are pressed against each other under slight pressure, in order to position the components to be bonded one against the other in a reliable manner, wherein at least one region adjacent to the transparent window in the hold-down device is cooled via cooling fins or a cooling fluid.
KEUERLEBER is silent as to: and wherein the adhesive is a cationic epoxy which contains water. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, HIROAKI teaches the use of an ultraviolet activatable adhesive film comprising an epoxy resin, an ultraviolet activatable cationic polymerization catalyst, cationic polymerization inhibitor, and water [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, by having the adhesive be a cationic epoxy with water, as suggested by HIROAKI, in order to prolong the time from activation to thermal press-bonding after the ultraviolet activatable adhesive film is activated by irradiation by ultraviolet rays [Abstract].
KEUERLEBER and HIROAKI are silent as to: wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by a hold-down device, wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation; and the hold-down device comprises a lower part and an upper part, which are pressed against each other under slight pressure, in order to position the components to be bonded one against the other in a reliable manner, wherein at least one region adjacent to the transparent window in the hold-down device is cooled via cooling fins or a cooling fluid.
In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding, ARAI teaches: wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by a hold- down device (ARAI teaches the components are held on to the other by a pressing jig (190, 390) [Figs. 8(a), 9(a), 15; 0057].), wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation (ARAI teaches a hold-down device that includes a stand and pressing jigs [0056; 0065; 0062;]. ARAI teaches pressing jigs may be provided with a glass plate having high heat resistance and high transmittance that transmits the laser beam (10), and the laser irradiation surface (11) may be irradiated with the laser beam via the glass plate [0150].); and the hold-down device comprises a lower part and an upper part (ARAI teaches a hold-down device includes a placing stand where the components are placed [0056]. ARAI teaches the pressing jig is then placed on the components once they are placed on the placing stand [0056], indicating the lower part is the placing stand and the upper part is the pressing jig [0056]. ARAI also teaches a u-shaped jig (31) [0061] that can be interpreted as a lower part.), which are pressed against each other under slight pressure (ARAI teaches the components are pressed against each other under pressure [0057; 0062; claim 12].), in order to position the components to be bonded one against the other in a reliable manner (ARAI teaches the components are bonded in a reliable manner [Abstract; claim 12; Fig. 6; 0057].), wherein at least one region adjacent to the transparent window in the hold-down device is cooled via cooling fins or a cooling fluid (ARAI teaches cooling fins are used to cool the metal base which is an area adjacent to the hold-down device [0029; 0097; Figs. 8(a)-(b)].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER and HIROAKI, by having a hold-down device with a window and cooling a region adjacent to the hold-down device, as suggested by ARAI, in order to transmit the laser beam to the laser irradiation surface via the window and the components be laser-bonded [0150-0151].
Regarding claim 6, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the heat is produced in the components through application of electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the adhesive is free of thermally crosslinking constituents (KEUERLEBER does not mention thermally crosslinking constituents within the adhesive).
Regarding claim 11, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein in the case of bringing the frame and/or the components into contact and heating the adhesive by electromagnetic radiation, the activation and the heating is done by the electromagnetic radiation in the same single exposure of the adhesive to the electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, and ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO.
Regarding claim 2, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI are silent as to: wherein the cationic epoxy has a water content of 100 to 500 ppm. In the same field of endeavor, bonding components, HOSHINO teaches: wherein the cationic epoxy has a water content of 100 to 500 ppm (HOSHINO teaches the resin composition has a moisture content of 1000 ppm or less [0022], which encompasses the claimed range.). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by having the moisture content in the resin to be 1000 or less, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to prevent the resin from deteriorating [0022].
Regarding claim 3, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the cationic epoxy has a viscosity of less than 100 mPas at 75°C (HOSHINO teaches the viscosity of the adhesive is 1000 mPas or lower, and still more this viscosity may be between any two of the values including 5 mPas, 10 mPas, 25 mPas, 50 mPas, 75 mPas, 100 mPas, 250 mPas, 500 mPas, 750 mPas, 1000 mPas, 2500 mPas, 5000 mPas and 7000 mPas [0114].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by having the adhesive be at a viscosity of 1000 mPas or lower, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to be precisely coated [0114].
Regarding claim 4, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the heating is done up to temperatures of 100 to 200°C (HOSHINO teaches that heating 200°C or lower [0120]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.ps with the claimed range.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by heating from 200°C or lower, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to prevent damage [0120].
Regarding claim 15, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the cationic epoxy has a viscosity of less than 100 mPas at 75°C (HOSHINO teaches the viscosity of the adhesive is 1000 mPas or lower, and still more this viscosity may be between any two of the values including 5 mPas, 10 mPas, 25 mPas, 50 mPas, 75 mPas, 100 mPas, 250 mPas, 500 mPas, 750 mPas, 1000 mPas, 2500 mPas, 5000 mPas and 7000 mPas [0114].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by having the adhesive be at a viscosity of 1000 mPas or lower, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to be precisely coated [0114].
Regarding claim 16, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the heating is done up to temperatures of 100 to 200°C (HOSHINO teaches the resin composition has a moisture content of 1000 ppm or less [0022], which encompasses the claimed range.). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by having the moisture content in the resin to be 1000 or less, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to prevent the resin from deteriorating [0022].
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, and ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA.
Regarding claim 5, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface boned to the other component and/or the frame. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, IKEDA teaches: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface boned to the other component and/or the frame (IKEDA teaches layers (204, 206) are comprised of a porous base material (for example, carbon paper, carbon cloth or glass carbon) [0039; Figs. 5B-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to form creating a gas diffusion layer [0039].
Regarding claim 10, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein in the case of bonding a frame to a component, the application of electromagnetic radiation at least for heating is carried out from the side of the frame through the same. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, IKEDA teaches: wherein in the case of bonding a frame to a component, the application of electromagnetic radiation at least for heating is carried out from the side of the frame through the same (IKEDA teaches bonding the frame and components of the fuel cell by ultraviolet radiation from the side of the frame [0047-0048; Figs. 5B-5C]. IKEDA teaches an adhesive is applied and the frame (300) is brought into contact with the adhesive [0046; Figs. 4A-4B]. IKEDA teaches once the adhesive, frame and components are brought into contact, the adhesive is activated by ultraviolet radiation [0046; 0048]. IKEDA teaches the components and frame are held by a jig (302) [0047; Fig. 4B]. IKEDA teaches the jig is made of an ultraviolet transmitting material (for example, quartz) [0047; Fig. 4B]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER and HIROAKI, by holding down the components with a transparent jig, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to indicate and guide the working position during assembly of the framed components [0047].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, and ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rock et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0159303), hereinafter ROCK.
Regarding claim 5, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the component of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface bonded to the other component and/or the frame. In the same field of endeavor, fuel cells, ROCK teaches the components have a microporous surface layer that is bonded to other layers [0046; 0050; 0052-0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by ROCK, in order to form a polymer electrolyte membrane and form a fuel cell [Claim 11; 0012].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, and ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rinde et al. (U.S. 4,507,340), hereinafter RINDE.
Regarding claim 7, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the adhesive is free of thermally crosslinking constituents. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RINDE teaches an adhesive that is substantially free of crosslinking [Col. 3,lines 22-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by substituting the adhesive from RINDE, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, and Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA.
Regarding claim 17, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and HOSHINO teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface bonded to the other component and/or frame. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, IKEDA teaches: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface bonded to the other component and/or frame (IKEDA teaches layers (204, 206) are comprised of a porous base material (for example, carbon paper, carbon cloth or glass carbon) [0039; Figs. 5B-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and HOSHINO, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to form creating a gas diffusion layer [0039].
Regarding claim 18, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the heat is produced in the components through application of electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, and Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Rock et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0159303), hereinafter ROCK.
Regarding claim 17, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and HOSHINO teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, fuel cells, ROCK teaches the components have a microporous surface layer that is bonded to other layers [0046; 0050; 0052-0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and HOSHINO, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by ROCK, in order to form a polymer electrolyte membrane and form a fuel cell [Claim 11; 0012].
Regarding claim 18, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the heat is produced in the components through application of electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO, and IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rinde et al. (U.S. 4,507,340), hereinafter RINDE.
Regarding claim 19, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI, HOSHINO and IKEDA teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the adhesive is free of thermally crosslinking constituents. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RINDE teaches an adhesive that is substantially free of crosslinking [Col. 3,lines 22-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI, HOSHINO and IKEDA, by substituting the adhesive from RINDE, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.")
Regarding claim 20, IKEDA further teaches: wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by means of a hold-down device, wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation (IKEDA teaches once the adhesive, frame and components are brought into contact, the adhesive is activated by ultraviolet radiation [0046; 0048]. IKEDA teaches the components and frame are held by a jig (302) [0047; Fig. 4B]. IKEDA teaches the jig is made of an ultraviolet transmitting material (for example, quartz) [0047; Fig. 4B].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and HOSHINO, by holding down the components with a transparent jig, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to indicate and guide the working position during assembly of the framed components [0047].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748