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 .
The amendment filed 9/12/2025 has been entered. Claim 8 has been canceled. New claims 19-21 have been added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US2018/0155624A1). Wu discloses a light-splitting material layer (21) positioned between and adhering a first electrode (22) and a second electrode (23) (reading upon “adhesive sheet comprising an adhesive layer” of instant claim 9 and the claimed “an adherend having a metal adherend surface” as in instant claim 10 given that metal electrodes would have been clearly envisaged by one skilled in the art), wherein the light-splitting material layer (21) is formed from light-splitting material composition comprising an ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer (reading upon the claimed “polymer”) and a liquid crystal mixture that comprises negative nematic liquid crystal molecules, a chiral additive and an ionic liquid (reading upon the claimed “adhesive composition” of instant claims 1 and 9; Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0014 and 0059, Fig. 2, Claim 7). Wu discloses that the negative nematic liquid crystal exhibits a planar orientation under an electric field (Paragraph 0043), reading upon the claimed “orientation material is a liquid crystal monomer” as in instant claim 1. Wu also discloses that the mass ratio of the liquid crystal mixture to the EVA copolymer is in a range of 3/7 to 8/2; while the mass proportion of the negative nematic liquid crystal is in a range of 69% to 98.9%, the mass proportion of the chiral additive is in a range of 1% to 30%, and the mass proportion of the ionic liquid is in a range of 0.1% to 1%, relative to the total mass of the liquid crystal mixture (Paragraphs 0004-0009), and hence, Wu clearly discloses a composition or “adhesive composition” comprising contents of the negative nematic liquid crystal as the claimed “orientation material” with respect to the EVA copolymer as the claimed “polymer” falling within the claimed range of 0.05 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less of the orientation material per 100 parts by mass of the polymer as recited in instant claim 1, such that Wu discloses the instantly claimed “adhesive composition”, “adhesive sheet”, and “joined body” with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1, 9, and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Alternatively, claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied above (and incorporated herein by reference), wherein although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claims 1, 9, and 10 as discussed in detail above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed “adhesive composition” of instant claim 1, the claimed “adhesive sheet” of instant claim 9, and the claimed “joined body” of instant claim 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Wu given the mass ratio of liquid crystal mixture to the EVA copolymer as the claimed polymer, and the mass proportion of negative nematic liquid crystal as the claimed “orientation material” in the liquid crystal mixture taught by Wu, and further given that metal electrodes are an obvious species of electrodes in the art. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed content of orientation material of 0.05 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the polymer as recited in instant claim 1, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 9, and 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Wu.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20150018120A, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections) in view of Amano (US2005/0197450A1) or Fujita (US2019/0338167A1). Kim teaches a reactive pressure-sensitive adhesive composition comprising a reactive liquid crystal compound, a photopolymerizable linear polymeric alignment agent, a binder resin, and a photopolymerization initiator, wherein the binder resin may be an acrylic copolymer formed from acrylic monomers as recited in page 3, lines 25-36 (reading upon the claimed “a polymer” as in instant claim 1, and particularly “an acrylic polymer” as in instant claims 5 and 13-14); and the reactive liquid crystal compound may be selected from the liquid crystal monomers recited on page 3, lines 1-4 (reading upon the claimed “orientation material is a liquid crystal monomer” as in instant claim 1) such as pyrimidine-based liquid crystals (as in instant claim 20), and is contained in an amount of 1 to 40 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the binder resin, overlapping the claimed parts by mass range as recited instant claim 1 with respect to the orientation material, and fully encompassing the orientation material range as recited in instant claims 19 and 21, thereby rendering obvious the claimed ranges thereof (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Claims 1-11; page 3, 1-12 and 25-36). Kim also teaches that the adhesive composition may further comprise various additives such as an antistatic agent (page 4, lines 27-29), however, Kim does not specifically teach that the adhesive composition comprises an ionic liquid as recited in instant claim 1, which is the only difference between the teachings of Kim and the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1. However, it is well established in the art that an ionic liquid is a known antistatic agent in the art for use in similar pressure-sensitive adhesive compositions as evidenced by Amano (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0030-0034) or Fujita (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0052-0055 and 0073-0076), such that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 19 and 20 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kim as evidenced by Amano or Fujita given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claims 2-3, although Kim teaches that the liquid crystal material (or monomer) is a material that can be oriented, Kim does not teach that the “adhesive composition is configured to facilitate cleavage-debonding of an adhesive layer formed of the adhesive composition from a conductive adherend, upon application of a voltage of 10 V for 10 seconds to the conductive adherend” as in instant claim 2, and more particularly “wherein the cleavage-debonding is natural debonding” as in instant claim 3. However, given that the claimed limitation is directed to the intended end use of the instantly claimed adhesive composition and that the reactive/unreacted adhesive composition taught by Kim as evidenced by Amano or Fujita or Kim ‘590, which comprises the same materials as instantly claimed, is capable of the same intended end use, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 2-3 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kim as evidenced by Amano or Fujita.
With respect to instant claims 4, 11-12, and 21, in addition to the teachings above of Kim with respect to the content of orientation material based on 100 parts by mass of the binder resin as the claimed polymer, and incorporation of an ionic liquid as an antistatic agent as in Fujita or Amano, it is further noted that Fujita teaches that by using an ionic liquid as taught in Paragraph 0053-0076, excellent antistatic properties can be imparted to the pressure-sensitive adhesive by adding a relatively small amount of the ionic liquid (Paragraph 0073), particularly an amount of ionic liquid in the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition of 1.5 to 20 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic polymer of the adhesive (Paragraph 0076), overlapping and hence rendering obvious the claimed range of 4 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the polymer, e.g. acrylic copolymer as the binder resin; while Amano teaches that an amount of an ionic liquid to be blended varies depending on compatibility between a polymer and an ionic liquid to be used but that in general, a content of preferably 0.01 to 40 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of a base polymer (also overlapping and rendering obvious the instantly claimed range), wherein when the amount is less than 0.01 part by weight, sufficient antistatic property is not obtained, and when the amount exceeds 40 parts by weight, there is a tendency that staining on the adherend is increased (Paragraph 0095). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed 4 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the polymer, instant claims 4, 11-12, and 21 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kim in view of Amano or Fujita given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to instant claims 5-7 and 13-18, as noted above, Kim teaches that the binder resin may be an acrylic copolymer formed from acrylic monomers as recited in page 3, lines 25-36, reading upon the claimed acrylic polymer of instant claims 5 and 13-14, and specifically teaches examples utilizing an acrylic copolymer as the binder resin, wherein the acrylic copolymer is formed from a monomer mixture containing 40 parts by weight of n-butyl acrylate, 59 parts by weight of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and 1 part by weight of acrylic acid, with the acrylic acid reading upon the claimed “acrylic polymer contains a unit derived from a polar group-containing monomer having a carboxyl group, an alkoxy group, a hydroxyl group and/or an amide bond” as in instant claims 6, 15, and 17, and the 1 part by weight of the acrylic acid falling within the claimed “proportion of the polar group-containing monomer to total monomer components of the acrylic polymer is 0.1 to 35 mass%” as in instant claims 7, 16 and 18. Hence, instant claims 5-7 and 13-18 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kim in view of Amano or Fujita.
With respect to instant claim 9, Kim teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet comprising the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition reading upon the instantly claimed sheet as in instant claim 9, particularly given that Kim also teaches that the sheet may comprise a substrate to which a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer formed from the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition is laminated (Claims 6-7) thereby rendering instant claim 9 obvious over the teachings of Kim in view of Amano or Fujita.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 1-7 and 9-21, filed on 9/12/2025, see pages 6-11, have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 9/12/2025.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787