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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 over Mochizuki et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamazaki et al.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al., WO 2022/004464. To the extent that it evolved from a National stage application of the aforementioned international disclosure, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0043623 is believed to have an identical disclosure and is used as a faithful translation of the WIPO document into the English language. All citation of teaching location will be those for the U.S. publication.
Applicant is directed to Embodiment 6 of Table 1 and the accompanying description of components in paragraphs [0117-0134]. The hydrosilylation-curable composition contains materials correlated with claimed components (A) through (D) respectively as follows:
30/73 (100) ≈ 41% of a1-1
32.2/73 (100) ≈ 42.7% of b1
2.8/73 (100) = 3.8% of c1-3
8/73 (100) = 10.9% of c1-2
The table does not include an entry indicating the relative total amounts of hydrosilyl groups contributed by c1-2 and c1-3 to vinyl groups contributed by a1-1 and b1 but [0079] states that a preferred range of suitable values for this aspect of the instant invention is 0.9 to 2.0, which is almost entirely coincident with the claimed range defining this parameter. The lone distinction between the prior art composition and that disclosed in claim 1 is that the platinum catalyst is added in an amount that furnishes 50 ppm of platinum metal whereas the claims stipulate that no more than 15 ppm may be incorporated. On the other hand, the prior art invention is not confined to precise amount of platinum. Indeed, [0084] indicates that as little as 0.01 to 50 ppm of the catalyst may be employed and, hence, compositions having makeup similar to that of Embodiment 6, but where quantities of platinum catalyst consistent with those claimed would be obvious.
As for claims 3, 4, and 5, paragraph [0103] contemplates utilizing the compositions that constitute the prior art invention as sealing materials for light emitting/optical devices.
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 MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
February 13, 2026
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights