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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 15 recites the term “substantially.” The term "substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III D. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “substantially.” For the purpose of examination limitations preceded by the term “substantially” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the term “about.” In determining the range encompassed by the term "about," one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III A. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “about.” For the purpose of examination limitations preceded by the term “about” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-20 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 relative term “some adhesive strength” that renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what quantitative value of adhesive strength is required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of “some.” For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “
Claim 1 recites the relative term “high strength adhesive” that renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what quantitative value of adhesive strength is required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of “high strength.” For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “an
Claims 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20 recite the term “ambient curing agent.” It is unclear if the “ambient curing agent” is referring to the “ambient curative” component recited in claims 3, 7, 9, and 10, or is referring to a different component. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as instead reciting “ambient curative
Claim 13 recites the relative phrase “wherein the addition of an ambient curing agent decreases the level of warping or deflection…due to coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch” that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the decreased level of warping or deflection is relative to; for example, is the decreased level relative to an equivalent adhesive that does not include an ambient curative, relative to an equivalent adhesive that includes an alternative non-ambient-type curative, or relative to the adhesive that has a specifically lower quantitative amount of the ambient curative? Furthermore, it is unclear what quantitative value of level of warping or deflection is required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “further comprising curative
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cure package." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “the dual-cure adhesive
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the final bonded dissimilar substrates." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “
Claim 16 recites the relative phrase “increases the holding ability, to minimize the number of fasteners required to hold a part in position pre-cure” that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the minimized number of fasteners is relative to; for example, what is an expected number of fasteners for pre-cure position for an adhesive comprising no ambient curative, or what is an expected number of fasteners for an adhesive comprising a lower level of ambient curative? Furthermore, it is unclear what quantitative values of holding ability and fastener reduction are required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “increases
Claim 17 recites the relative phrase “ambient cure must not react to a degree such that it prevents proper wet out and/or complete cure” that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what quantitative degree of ambient curing is required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of the claim. Also, it is unclear what quantitative degree of “wet out/and or complete cure” is required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of the claimed term “proper.” For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “wherein a first-stageof ambient curing is applied
Claim 18 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim), and therefore, is considered to be indefinite, because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “between 5 and 50%,” and also recites “or even between 15-30%” which is the narrower statement of the range. The claim is considered indefinite, because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed ranges are mass%, volume%, molar%, or some other basis. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “ambient curative by mass
Claim 19 recites the relative phrase “substantially prevents one or more adhesive properties from developing” that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific properties are required to satisfy or render obvious the claimed “one or more adhesive properties.” Also, it is unclear what quantitative degree of “substantially prevents…from developing” is required to satisfy or render obvious the scope of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed range is mass%, volume%, molar%, or some other basis. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “wherein an amount of ambient curative is not below about 5% by mass
Claim 20 recites the relative phrase “has a deleterious effect on one or more adhesive properties” that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific properties are required to satisfy or render obvious the claimed “one or more adhesive properties.” Also, it is unclear what quantitative degree of “effect” is required to satisfy or render obvious the claimed term “deleterious.” Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed range is mass%, volume%, molar%, or some other basis. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as instead reciting “wherein an amount of ambient curative is not above about 50% by mass
Claims 2-12 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oka et al. (JP 2015174885 A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Oka teaches a two-component adhesive consisting of a first component and a second component (Oka, [0008]-[0009], [0041]-[0042]). Oka teaches the adhesive partially reacts radicals at room temperature and partially cures by mixing the first component and the second component to provide adhesiveness between two members (substrates), and then further cures upon exposure to subsequent heating (i.e., a secondary stimulus) to provide stronger adhesion between the two members (Oka, [0010]-[0011], [0014], [0018], [0023], [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Oka teaches the first component contains (B) a compound having a reactive (meth)acrylate group that reacts with ambient curatives ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) and a glycidyl reactive group that reacts with (D) a latent curing agent (Oka, [0008], [0014], [0024]-[0026], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Oka teaches the first component can contain (A) a compound having glycidyl reactive groups that react with (D) a latent curing agent of the second component, and the first component can contain (E) an organic peroxide compound having reactive groups that complement with (F) a reducing agent compound of the second component (Oka, [0030], [0032], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, Oka teaches the first component contains (A) a compound having glycidyl (epoxy) reactive groups, and the second component contains (D) a latent curing agent such as a dicyandiamide having amine groups (Oka, [0014]-[0015], [0024]-[0029], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 7, Oka teaches the first or the second component can contain (B) a compound having a (meth)acrylate group that reacts with radicals formed by (E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent at room temperature with (i.e., ambient curing agent) and a glycidyl (epoxy) group that reacts with (D) a latent curing agent (Oka, [0008], [0016]-[0017], [0028]-[0037], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 8, Oka teaches the first component contains (A) a compound having glycidyl reactive groups, (B) a compound having both a (meth)acrylate group and a glycidyl (epoxy) group, and (C) a compound having (meth)acrylate groups; and the second component contains (D) a latent curing agent such as dicyandiamide having amine groups (Oka, [0014]-[0026], [0030], [0032], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Oka teaches the ambient curative ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) form radicals to allow (B) the compound having both a (meth)acrylate group and a glycidyl (epoxy) group and (C) the compound having (meth)acrylate groups to form a (meth)acrylate-based polymer network (i.e., a thermoplastic network) at room temperature when the first and second components are mixed together (Oka, [0016]-[0023], [0041]-[0044]). The glycidyl groups of (A) and (B) are present in the adhesive after ambient curing and have the potential to cure into a thermoset with (D) the latent curing agent if heat is added (i.e., a partial thermoset) (Oka, [0014]-[0017], [0024]-[0029], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 11, Oka teaches the ambient curative ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) form radicals to allow (B) the compound having both a (meth)acrylate group and a glycidyl (epoxy) group and (C) the compound having (meth)acrylate groups to form a (meth)acrylate-based polymer network (i.e., a thermoplastic network) when the first and second components are mixed together (Oka, [0016]-[0023], [0041]-[0044]). The glycidyl groups of (A) and (B) are present in the adhesive after ambient curing (a stimulus) and have the potential to cure into a thermoset with (D) the latent curing agent if heat is added, but the overall adhesive only has the (meth)acrylate-based polymer network (thermoplastic network) before additional heat is added (Oka, [0014]-[0017], [0024]-[0029], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 12, Oka teaches the ambient curative ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) form radicals to allow (B) the compound having both a (meth)acrylate group and a glycidyl (epoxy) group and (C) the compound having (meth)acrylate groups to form a (meth)acrylate-based polymer network (i.e., a thermoplastic network) when the first and second components are mixed together (Oka, [0016]-[0023], [0041]-[0044]). The glycidyl groups of (A) and (B) are present in the adhesive after ambient curing (a first stimulus) and cure into a thermoset with (D) the latent curing agent when subsequent heat is added (a second stimulus) (Oka, [0014]-[0017], [0024]-[0029], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 13, Oka teaches ambient curatives ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) are included in the adhesive and form radicals to allow (B) a compound having both a (meth)acrylate group and a glycidyl (epoxy) group and (C) a compound having (meth)acrylate groups to form a (meth)acrylate-based polymer network (i.e., a thermoplastic network) at room temperature when the first and second components are mixed together (Oka, [0016]-[0023], [0041]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 20, Oka teaches the ambient curatives ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) are included in a total amount of 0.2-20 parts by mass ((E) 0.1-10 parts by mass and (F) 0.1-10 parts by mass) (Oka, [0030]-[0037], [0041]-[0046]). Oka’s total amount satisfies the claimed range of not above about 50% by mass for claim 20, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
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 5 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (JP 2015174885 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Gorodisher et al. (US 2011/0120646 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Oka teaches the two-component adhesive consisting of the first component and the second component as discussed above for claims 1 and 3. Oka teaches an ambient curative ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) forms radicals to allow (B) a compound having both a (meth)acrylate group and a glycidyl (epoxy) group and (C) a compound having (meth)acrylate groups to form a (meth)acrylate-based polymer network when the first and second components are mixed together (Oka, [0016]-[0023], [0041]-[0044]). The glycidyl groups of (A) and (B) are present in the adhesive after ambient curing (a first stimulus) and cure into a thermoset with (D) the latent curing agent when subsequent heat is added (a second stimulus) (Oka, [0014]-[0017], [0024]-[0029], [0041]-[0046]). Oka teaches the room temperature curing and heat curing form a strong network structure (Oka, [0016]).
Oka remains silent regarding an interpenetrating polymer network (IPN).
Gorodisher, however, a two-component adhesive composition comprising a curable epoxy resin, an amine curing agent, a (meth)acrylate reactive liquid modifier, secondary curatives, and initiators that is sandwiched between two members, where the adhesive is cured and crosslinked to form two different polymer networks (an epoxy-based network and a radical-based (meth)acrylate network) (Gorodisher, Abstract, [0004]-[0006], [0018]-[0111]). Gorodisher teaches the resultant polymer networks yield an interpenetrating polymer network that can exhibit enhanced performance (Gorodisher, [0015], [0103]-[0116]).
Since Oka and Gorodisher both disclose similar two-component adhesives that form two different polymer networks including an epoxy-based network and a radical-based (meth)acrylate network, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Oka’s two-component adhesive forms an interpenetrating polymer network according to Gorodisher’s teachings and guidance that can exhibit enhanced performance, a strong and robust bond to more than one type of substrate, and good lap shear strength to suitably supplement or eliminate the need for a weld or mechanical fastener as taught by Gorodisher (Gorodisher, [0015], [0103]-[0116]).
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, modified Oka teaches the two-component adhesive consisting of the first component and the second component forming an interpenetrating polymer network as discussed above for claims 1, 3, and 5. Modified Oka teaches the adhesive allows components to be bonded together quickly before further heating that yields a stronger adhesion between members, tests embodiments for good component fixing times after room temperature curing, tests embodiments to ascertain good lap shear properties (Oka, [0007], [0011], [0046]-[0049]), teaches increasing content of the ambient curatives and radical reactive groups increases curing speed at room temperature and yields better adhesive performance (Oka, [0023], [0031], [0037]), and achieves robust bond adhesion and lap shear that can supplement or eliminate the need for welds or mechanical fasteners between dissimilar substrates (Gorodisher, [0112]-[0123], [0166]-[0170]). In view of the foregoing, modified Oka’s adhesive is considered to satisfy and/or at least render obvious the characterization of claim 14 (of decreasing warpage of final bonded dissimilar substrates) and of claim 16 (of increasing lap shear strength and holding ability) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claims 15 and 17, modified Oka teaches the two-component adhesive consisting of the first component and the second component forming an interpenetrating polymer network as discussed above for claims 1, 3, 5, and 6. Modified Oka teaches the adhesive allows components to be bonded together quickly before further heating that yields a stronger adhesion between members, tests embodiments for good component fixing times after room temperature curing, tests embodiments to ascertain good lap shear properties (Oka, [0007], [0011], [0046]-[0049]), and achieves adhesion that can supplement or eliminate the need for welds or mechanical fasteners between dissimilar substrates (Gorodisher, [0116]-[0123], [0166]-[0170]). In view of the foregoing, modified Oka’s adhesive is considered to satisfy and/or at least render obvious the characterization of claim 15 (of substantially preventing bond line separation of dissimilar substrates after room temperature curing) and of claim 17 (undergoing ambient/room temperature curing) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (JP 2015174885 A) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Oka teaches the two-component adhesive consisting of the first component and the second component as discussed above for claims 1 and 3. Oka teaches the ambient curatives ((E) an organic peroxide and (F) a reducing agent) are included in a total amount of 0.2-20 parts by mass ((E) 0.1-10 parts by mass and (F) 0.1-10 parts by mass) (Oka, [0030]-[0037], [0041]-[0046]). Oka’s total amount overlaps the claimed ranges of between 5-50% by mass for claims 18 and 19, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights