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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 29, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twelves, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0290423) in view of Mochizuki (US 2015/0367538).
Considering Claim 1: Twelves, Jr. et al. teaches a three dimensional multi-level interlocking structure comprising a first polymer component and a second polymer component (¶0022), the first polymer component comprising a first bonding component (32), at least one first bonding trough and at least one macrostructure alternately positioned on a bonding surface of the first bonding component (Fig. 3C); the second polymer component comprising a second bonding component (34), at least one second bonding trough and at least one second macrostructure alternately positioned on a bonding surface of the first bonding component (Fig. 3C); where the first macrostructure is aligned with the second bonding trough, the second macrostructure is aligned with the first bonding trough, and where the top plane of the first and second macrostructure extend past each other (Fig. 3C). Twelves, Jr. et al. teaches that the bonding macrostructures have grooves/microstructure in a periodic pattern (¶0017; Fig. 1B)
Twelves, Jr. et al. does not teach the specific adhesive thickness and gap length. However, changes in relative dements has been found to be obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04. Twelves, Jr. et al. teaches tailoring the features of the protrusion and recess to control the tension, shear torsion, and edge peel of the joint (¶0017). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the relative dimensions of the adhesive thickness and gap length to provide sufficient tension, shear, torsion and edge peel to the bonding surface (¶0017).
Twelves, Jr. et al. does not teach the surface area of the first component is greater than the surface area of the first macrostructure surface and the second component is greater than the surface area of the second macrostructure surface. However, Mochizuki teaches distance between adjacent grooves is 0.75 times to 4 times the width of the groove (¶0067). When the width between the grooves is less than the width of the grooves, the claimed surface area relationship is achieved, as the width of the groove is the surface area of the first component and the width between the grooves is the surface area of the macrostructrues (Fig. 1). Twelves, Jr. et al. and Mochizuki are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely interlocking polymer surfaces. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a width between the grooves that is less than the width of the grooves, as in Mochizuki, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Mochizuki suggests, to allow for anchoring of the surfaces and preventing destruction of the bond (¶0067).
Considering Claim 23: Twelves, Jr. et al. teaches the size and shape of the void spaces and the pins (the adhesive gap between the components and first and second macrostructures) as being adjustable to provide mechanical lock between the adhesive the polymer components (¶0022). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the gap size (36) of Twelves, Jr. et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Twelves, Jr. et al. suggests, to create mechanical lock between the bonding structures.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twelves, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0290423) in view of Mochizuki (US 2015/0367538) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwano (JP 2017-100394).
Considering Claim 2: Twelves, Jr. et al. and Mochizuki collectively teach the structure of claim 1 as shown above.
Twelves, Jr. et al. does not teach the presence of fibrous reinforcement. However, Iwano teaches reinforcing fibers between the body of the polymeric material and the convex bonding portion, with the fibers being present throughout (¶0012). Iwano teaches that the reinforcing fibers in the convex portion of the material are perpendicular to the surface to be bonded/the interface of the bonding component and the macrostructure (¶0012; Fig. 1 and 2). Twelves, Jr. et al. and Iwano are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely bonding polymeric structures. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the reinforcing fibers of Iwano to the first and second polymeric components of Twelves, Jr. et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Iwano suggests, to increase the joining strength of the two polymeric components (¶0012).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twelves, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0290423) in view of Mochizuki (US 2015/0367538) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajihara et al. (US 2019/0054672).
Considering Claim 22: Twelves, Jr. et al. and Mochizuki collectively teach the structure of claim 1 as shown above.
Twelves, Jr. et al. is silent as to whether the polymer resins are the same or different. However, Kajihara et al. teaches bonding a polymer resin component to a different resin component with distinct properties (¶0030). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected polymer resins with different compositions for the first and second component, and the motivation to do so would have been, to widen the range of applications by bonding dissimilar components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed structure, where the microstructures where the firs and second patterned microstructures are uniformly spaced on a first and second top planar portion, respectively, of the first and second macrostructure. The closest prior art of record is Twelves et al., discussed above. Twelves et al. does not teach the microstructures as being present on the top planar portions of the macrostructures, and does not provide any suggestion to add the microstructures from the sides of the macrostructure to the top planar portion of the microstructure.
Further, Kajihara et al. (US 2019/0054672), discussed in the final rejection, teaches a means of forming microstructures on the top planar portion of the macrostructures. However, Kajihara et al. teaches using a blast machining process that would not provide uniform spacing to the microstructures, due to the random nature of the process (¶0009-10, Fig. 3).
As such, the claimed structure is non-obvious over Twelves Jr. et al, alone or taken with Kajihara et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 22, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights