Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/256,812

METHOD OF APPLYING AN ADHESIVE FILM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 09, 2023
Examiner
BEHA, CAROLINE
Art Unit
1748
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ppg Advanced Surface Technologies LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
138 granted / 238 resolved
-7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
287
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
61.5%
+21.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 238 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The communication dated 12/4/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11 are pending. Claims 7 and 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration. 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, see pg. 5, filed 12/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3 under § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that the newly amended limitations of the adhesive film is to be applied “by deflecting an elastic membrane by generating a negative pressure in a space between the elastic membrane and the surface of the component” is not taught by the prior art. The Examiner agrees that the prior art does not teach the newly amended limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new prior art. The Applicant argues that ICHIKAWA does not teach the newly amended limitation “wherein the adhesive film has a film thickness of 10 µm to 80 µm”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. ICHIKAWA teaches the adhesive has a thickness preferably about 0.05 to 10 µm [0033], which meets the claimed range. 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. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0129389), hereinafter ICHIKAWA, in view of Nakata et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0063494), hereinafter NAKATA. Regarding claim 1, ICHIKAWA teaches: A method for applying an adhesive film to the surface of a component (ICHIKAWA teaches the adhesive film (cover tape) is applied to a component (electronic part storage member) [0069]), comprising: a. carrying out a physical surface activation of an adhesive layer of an adhesive film (ICHIKAWA teaches the surface of a thermally adhesive resin layer (2) may be subjected to surface treatment such as a plasma treatment [0055; Figs. 1-2]); b. moistening the adhesive layer of the adhesive film (ICHIKAWA teaches the thermally adhesive resin layer (2) may be subjected to a moistening treatment [0059]. ICHIKAWA teaches the moistening treatment may be conducted in combination with the surface treatment [0061]); and c. bringing the surface-activated and moistened adhesive film in contact with a surface of the component to which the adhesive film is to be applied (ICHIKAWA teaches the adhesive film (cover tape) is applied to a component (electronic part storage member) [0069]) . . . ; wherein the physical surface activation comprises a plasma treatment and/or a flame treatment (ICHIKAWA teaches the surface of a thermally adhesive resin layer (2) may be subjected to surface treatment such as a plasma treatment [0055; Figs. 1-2]); wherein the adhesive film has a film thickness of 10 µm to 80 µm (ICHIKAWA teaches the adhesive has a thickness preferably about 0.05 to 10 µm [0033], which meets the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). ICHIKAWA is silent as to applying the adhesive film: by deflecting an elastic membrane by generating a negative pressure in a space between the elastic membrane and the surface of the component. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, NAKATA teaches a pressing member (21) that may bean elastically deformable material [0054]. NAKATA teaches upper and lower cases (30, 16) are enclosed in alignment with each other and then a predetermined decompression state is attached while controlling a first (S1) and second space (S2). The decompression state of the first space (S1) is released to bring the adhesive sheet to the component surface in the second space (S2), which maintains the decompressed state [0043-0044; Figs. 3-5]. NAKATA teaches when the pressing member (12) receives the downward force exerted to the pressing surface (21), resulting from the release of the decompression, the deformable portion (23) begins to be deformed [Fig. 4; 0044]. The deformation causes surface position of the pressing surface (21) to be pushed down, and thus the central area of the pressing surface (21) is adapted to press down the sheet S, resulting in that sticking of the sheet S to the central part of the component is carried out [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ICHIKAWA, by applying the adhesive by deflecting an elastic membrane by generating a negative pressure in the space between the component and elastic membrane, as suggested by NAKATA, in order to eliminate the trapping of air and ensure reliable sticking of the sheet [0009]. Regarding claim 4, ICHIKAWA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: further comprising: a. bringing the adhesive film in contact with the surface to which the adhesive film is to be applied by initially pressing the adhesive film in a localized manner onto the surface to which the adhesive film is to be applied. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, NAKATA teaches the deformation causes surface position of the pressing surface (21) to be pushed down, and thus the central area of the pressing surface (21) is adapted to press down the sheet S, resulting in that sticking of the sheet S to the central part of the component is carried out [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ICHIKAWA, by initially pressing the film onto the surface in a localized manner, as suggested by NAKATA, in order to eliminate the trapping of air and ensure reliable sticking of the sheet [0009]. Regarding claim 5, NAKATA further teaches: further comprising: a. bringing the adhesive film in contact with the surface to which the adhesive film is to be applied using an elastic membrane, which can be deflected for pressing the adhesive film onto the surface to which the adhesive film is to be applied (NAKATA teaches a pressing member (21) that may bean elastically deformable material [0054]. NAKATA teaches upper and lower cases (30, 16) are enclosed in alignment with each other and then a predetermined decompression state is attached while controlling a first (S1) and second space (S2). The decompression state of the first space (S1) is released to bring the adhesive sheet to the component surface in the second space (S2), which maintains the decompressed state [0043-0044; Figs. 3-5]. NAKATA teaches when the pressing member (12) receives the downward force exerted to the pressing surface (21), resulting from the release of the decompression, the deformable portion (23) begins to be deformed [Fig. 4; 0044]. The deformation causes surface position of the pressing surface (21) to be pushed down, and thus the central area of the pressing surface (21) is adapted to press down the sheet S, resulting in that sticking of the sheet S to the central part of the component is carried out [0044].). Regarding claim 6, NAKATA further teaches: further comprising: a. deflecting the membrane by generating a negative pressure in a space between the elastic membrane and the surface of the component (NAKATA teaches the concept of deflecting the membrane (21) by generating a negative pressure in the space between the component and the membrane (21) [0043-0047; Figs. 3-6].). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0129389), hereinafter ICHIKAWA, in view of Nakata et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0063494), hereinafter NAKATA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dike (U.S. 1,922,668), hereinafter DIKE. Regarding claim 3, ICHIKAWA and NAKATA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: further comprising: a. moistening the adhesive layer by the atomization of water. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, DIKE teaches wetting an adhesive by the atomization of water [Col. 2, lines 90-108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ICHIKAWA and NAKATA, by spraying the layer of adhesive by atomization of water, as suggested by DIKE, in order for the water to spread evenly and uniformly [Col. 3, lines 18-23]. Conclusion 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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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. /C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 09, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583190
SUBSTRATE-FASTENING DEVICE AND SUBSTRATE-ASSEMBLING STRUCTURE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12528230
POWDERY-MATERIAL MIXING DEGREE MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND COMPRESSION MOLDING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12515871
DOUBLE-WALL CONTAINER, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DOUBLE-WALL CONTAINER, AND INVERSION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12509803
HIGH-ELONGATION META-ARAMID FIBER, PREPARATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12479170
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A COMPOSITE BLADE FOR AN AIRCRAFT ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+25.5%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 238 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month