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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application GERMANY 10 2022 105 737.2 03/11/2022 filed on 03/15/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 08/22/25 and 10/03/23 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of i. One A monomer: methyl methacrylate ii. One B monomer: n-butyl acrylate, and iii. One cycloaliphatic group: cyclohexyl group in the reply filed on 09/29/25 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification is objected for abstract’s length. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the beginning recitation “Curable adhesive” line 1 should be “A curable adhesive”
In claims 2-9, 11-20, the beginning recitation “Curable adhesive” line 1 should be “The curable adhesive”
In claim 10, the beginning recitation “Adhesive tape” line 1 should be “An adhesive tape”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janoski (US 2024/0084125) as evidenced from KURARITY copolymer Product data sheet, product data sheet of EPON 828, and product data sheet of EPON 1001F (downloaded on 1/18/26).
Regarding claims 1-8, 10-19, Janoski discloses an adhesive tape comprising as adhesive layer a curable adhesive (para [0001], [0004], [0112]), wherein the curable adhesive comprising methacrylate block copolymer of structure A-B-A structure such as KURARITY copolymer (Methyl methacrylate-Acrylate-Methyl methacrylate), wherein the block copolymer is present in an amount of 20 to 60 wt% (para [0006], [0016], [0027], [0030], [0028]), overlapping mass fraction of claim 1 amount of 25% or more, or claim 6 amount of 28% or more, or claim 15 amount of 30% or more, or claim 16 amount of 33% or more, wherein block A is hard block and block B is soft block in KURARITY copolymer (para [0027], [0029]-[0030]) having Tg 100 to 200 0C for hard block, overlapping claim 1 Tg of 50 0C or more and Tg -40 to -50 0C (of PnBA) or Tg -40 to -60 0C (of P(nBA/2EHA) for soft block, overlapping claim 1 Tg of 50 0C or less as evidenced from KURARITY copolymer Product data sheet, wherein the <δp>(A) for A block of A monomer, e.g. methyl methacrylate (para [0029]) is 9.31 MPa0.5 (please SEE applicants specification table 3), fall into claim 1 range of 9.0 to 11.0 MPa0.5, claim 2 range of 9.1 to 10.0 MPa0.5, claim 11 range of 9.2 to 9.5 MPa0.5, or claim 12 range of 9.3 to 9.4 MPa0.5, wherein the <δp>(B) for B block of B monomer, e.g. n-butyl acrylate (para [0029]) is 8.60 MPa0.5 (please SEE applicants specification table 3), fall into claim 1 range of less than 9 MPa0.5, claim 3 range of 6.0 to 8.9 MPa0.5, claim 13 range of 6.5 to 8.8 MPa0.5, or claim 14 range of 7.0 to 8.7 MPa0.5. Janoski further discloses epoxy resin in an amount of 5 to 60 wt% (para [0031]) comprises first epoxy and second epoxy in ratio of 1:1 (para [0032] with the example of EPON 828 and EPON 1001F (para [0033]). As evidenced from product data sheet of EPON 828 is liquid with viscosity 110-115 p (fall into claim 1 range of viscosity 40 Pa or less) and from product data sheet of EPON 1001F is solid, wherein epoxy resin in an amount of 5 to 60 wt% comprises first epoxy and second epoxy in ratio of 1:1 (para [0031]-[0032]), overlapping claim 1 first epoxy in mass fraction 5% or more and second epoxy in mass fraction 5% or more, claim 7 first epoxy in mass fraction 10% or more, claim 8 second epoxy in mass fraction 10% or more, claim 17 first epoxy in mass fraction 15% or more, claim 18 first epoxy in mass fraction 20% or more, or claim 19 second epoxy in mass fraction 20% or more. Table 4 example 19 of Jonoski is more specific to the claimed composition.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the curable adhesive, wherein Janoski discloses the block copolymer in an amount of 20 to 60 wt%, Tg 100 to 200 0C for hard block, Tg -40 to -50 0C (of PnBA) or Tg -40 to -60 0C (of P(nBA/2EHA) for soft block, and epoxy resin in an amount of 5 to 60 wt% comprises first epoxy and second epoxy in ratio of 1:1, overlapping the requirement of claims 1, 6-8, 15-19. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janoski as evidenced from KURARITY copolymer Product data sheet, product data sheet of EPON 828, and product data sheet of EPON 1001F (downloaded on 1/18/26) applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schwartz (US 2016/0288473).
Janoski includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 9, 20, Jonoski does not disclose the one or the two or more first epoxide compounds and/or the one or the two or more second epoxide compounds are selected from epoxide compounds having at least one cycloaliphatic group, where epoxide compounds having at least one cycloaliphatic group are selected from epoxide compounds having at least one a cyclohexyl group and/or dicyclopentadienyl group.
However, Schwartz discloses an adhesive tape comprising as adhesive layer a curable adhesive (para [0009], [0026]), comprising methacrylate block copolymer of structure A-B-A structure such as KURARITY copolymer LA2250 (table 1) and plurality of epoxy resin such as EPON 828 and EPON 1001F, and functionally equivalent cyclohexyl epoxy resin, e.g., bis(3,4-epoxy-6-methylcyclohexylmethyl) adipate (para [0046]-[0048]). Jonoski and Schwartz are pertinent to the adhesive tape comprising as adhesive layer a curable adhesive comprising methacrylate block copolymer of structure A-B-A structure such as KURARITY copolymer and plurality of epoxy resin such as EPON 828 and EPON 1001F.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the cyclohexyl epoxy resin of the claims in the composition of Jonoski because Schwartz teaches that the claimed cyclohexyl epoxy resin and the epoxy resin such as EPON 828 or EPON 1001F of Jonoski are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766