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 .
Priority
The foreign priority is not in English, the claims have an effective date of the filing of the PCT:10/26/21
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/9/26 has been being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1, and its dependents, is 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 has the limitation (n is 2 to 6 and m is 2 to 25) in parenthesis. The inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki CN 103140517B (English translation provided in the IDS dated 2/9/26).
Suzuki discloses acrylic adhesive compositions [0002] (meeting the adhesive requirements of claim 1) comprising an acrylic resin A [0030]. The acrylic resin comprises monomer a1 that is a methacrylic acid alkyl ester monomer such as those of [0031] including, lauryl (meth) acrylate (a c12 alkyl group-meeting the methacrylic acid alkyl ester monomer having 10-36 c atoms of claim 1) and stearyl methacrylate (a c18 alkyl group, also meeting the above monomer), in amounts of 50-95 wt% [0033]. The acrylic resin copolymer may further include hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, hydroxybutyl(meth)acrylate [0035] (meeting the claimed polar monomer), used in amounts ranging 0.01-30wt% [0044], (embracing the less than 3 wt% of claim 1). The acrylic resin has a MW from 100,000-5,000,000 [0050] (embracing the MW of claim 7)
The composition further comprises a polyfunctional unsaturated compound D [0122] such as diethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (meeting the formula of claim 1 wherein n=2, m=2 having 2 unsaturated groups), tetraethyleneglycol di(meth)acrylate (meeting the formula of claim 1 wherein n=2, m=4, 2 unsaturated groups), amongst others of [0128].
In light of the overlapping monomers and wt% ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim.
Further, though the combination of acrylic resin A and polyfunctional compound D are picked from a list of possible combinations it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Elements above thus render prima facie obvious the requirements of claims 1-2. Mixing the 2 methacrylic acid monomers mentioned above (steryl(meth)acylate and lauryl(meth)acrylate) is prima facie obvious and meets claim 3. Elements above meet claim 4. By definition, the acrylates are energy ray crosslinkable, as required by claim 5, and, benzophenone can be used as a crosslinking aid [0135], thus the above is capable of being crosslinked with a benzophenone, as required by claim 6. The MW discussed above embraces and renders obvious claim 7.
The acrylic resin is meant to be crosslinked via the initiators of [0135], [0155], and is an adhesive layer [0156], those “formed by” limitations are product by process. Though the composition is crosslinked as above, the methods of crosslinking are not pertinent unless Applicant shows a distinct product is produced. Those “for image display” limitations are drawn to the future intended use/preamble use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims. Elements above thusly meet claims 8-13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759