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 .
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 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if 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 7 recites the broad recitation that the amount of (meth)acrylate is from 5 to 90%, and the claim also recites that the claim is 20 to 80%, and 40 to 70%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (WO 2013/067947).
With regards to claim 1, Zhang teaches an adhesive composition (abstract) that contains a (meth)acrylate monomer, an epoxy resin, and a cationic photopolymerization initiator (abstract) wherein the epoxy is an aliphatic compound (page 2). Zhang further teaches the adhesive to include a radical photopolymerization initiator that includes an acylphosphine peroxide (page 14) and a curing agent that includes tertiary amines (reading on the accelerator) (page 16). Zhang teaches the amount of the epoxy to be 35 parts and the amount of the (meth)acrylates to be 13 parts (page 21 example 1) reading on a ratio of 2.7:1.
With regards to claim 2, Zhang teaches the (meth)acrylate compound to include monomers (abstract).
With regards to claim 3, Zhang teaches the curing agent to include tertiary amines (page 17).
With regards to claim 5, Zhang teaches the epoxy to be a polyglycidyl ether of aliphatic polyols (page 4).
With regards to claim 6, Zhang teaches the cationic photopolymerization initiator to include sulfonium salts and iodonium salts (page 4)
With regards to claim 7, Zhang teaches the amount of the (meth)acrylate monomer to be 13 parts and the total amount of the (meth)acrylate to be 58 parts (page 21 example 1) in a composition having 100 parts, reading on 13 and 58% respectively.
With regards to claim 8, Zhang teaches the amount of the epoxy compound to be 35 parts (page 21 example 1) in a composition having 100 parts, reading on 35%.
With regards to claim 9, Zhang teaches the amount of the epoxy to be 35 parts and the amount of the (meth)acrylates to be 13 parts (page 21 example 1) reading on a ratio of 2.7:1.
With regards to claim 10, Zhang teaches the amount of the (meth)acrylate monomer to be 13 parts and the total amount of the (meth)acrylate to be 58 parts (page 21 example 1) in a composition having 100 parts, reading on 13 and 58% respectively, the amount of the epoxy compound to be 35 parts (page 21 example 1) in a composition having 100 parts, reading on 35%, the amount of amine curing agent to be from 0 to 65 parts based on 100 parts of the adhesive composition (page 15) with the preferred amount of additive to be 2% (page 21 example 1), the amount of radical photopolymerization initiator to be from 1 to 5 parts based on 100 parts of the adhesive composition with a preferred amount of 2% (page 21 example 1), the amount of epoxy to be 35%, and the amount of cationic photoinitiator to be 1.5% (page 21 example 1) with the total amount of those components being equal to 100%.
With regards to claim 11, Zhang teaches the components to be mixed without the initiators at room temperature (22°C) followed by mixing in the initiators while maintaining the temperature (pages 20-21 example 1).
With regards to claims 12 and 15-16, Zhang teaches the adhesive composition to be applied to a glass plate (reading on a substrate) wherein the substrate was exposed to ultraviolet radiation with an PC plate substrate on the other side of the substrate (pages 19-20).
With regards to claims 13 and 14, Zhang teaches the adhesive composition to form a cured product by light irradiation (pages 1-2).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2013/067947) in view of Jacobine et al (US 2003/0060588).
The disclosure of Zhang is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is herein incorporated by reference.
With regards to claim 4, Zhang does not teach the claimed accelerator to include Sacchrin and acetyl-2-phenylhydrazine.
Jacobine teaches an acrylate resin (title) that is used in an adhesive (0002) that includes a photoinitiator (0058) and an anerobic cure inducing compound to include saccharin and acetyl phenylhydrazine (0060) and teaches the motivation for adding said compounds to be because it allows for the composition to be cured anerobically. Zhang and Jacobine are analogous in the art of curable adhesive compositions. In light of the benefit above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to add the initiator of Jacobine to the composition of Zhang, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763