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. 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. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/017796 02/25/2022 ; PCT/US22/17796 has PRO 63/173,534 04/12/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 07/17/23 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-2, 5-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11820896 in view of Lim (WO 2019/028013; for convenience patent family US 2020/0207985 applied). Regarding claims 1 -2 , 5- 7 , 9-10 , patented claim 1 discloses the first organopolysiloxane and second organosiloxane, tetraalkoxy silane, UV light photoinitiator, and condensation catalyst, wherein the concentration of the first and second organopolysiloxanes are such that the molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups to alkenyl groups is in a range of 0.4 to 3.0 , wherein patented claim 2 discloses the instantly claimed structure of the first organopolysiloxane, wherein patented claim 3 discloses the instantly claimed structure of the second organopolysiloxane, wherein patented claim 8 discloses radical scavenger. Patented claims do not disclose the biacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator and the radical scavenger in an amount of 0.001 to 2 wt%. However, Lim discloses a dual cure organopolysiloxane composition comprising a first organopolysiloxane and a second organopolysiloxane (para [0013], [0020]-[0026], bisacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator such as bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphine oxide and a liquid photoinitiator such as 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-1-one (para [0028] , [0084] ), a condensation catalyst (para [0029]), a silane with an average 2 hydrolysable groups such as alkoxy per molecule (para [0076]-[0077), and radical scavenger such as hydroquinone in an amount of 0.029 wt% (para [0094], table 1, ex 1; 0.04 parts per 139.6 of total amount of the composition), fall into claimed range of 0.001 to 2 wt% . At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified patented claims with the aforementioned teachings of Lim to provide bisacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator such as bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphine oxide and a liquid photoinitiator such as 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-1-one and radical scavenger such as hydroquinone in an amount of 0.029 wt% in order to use such composition as dual curing agent . Since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.06(11) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair& Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc vAg-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988). Further, t he rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Lim that to do so would provide excellent curability (Lim, para [0010]). Regarding claim 8 , patented claim 7 discloses the concentration of the condensation catalyst is 0.01 to 10 wt%, encompasses instant claimed range of 0.01 to 5 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the composition where the patented claim discloses the concentration of the condensation catalyst is 0.01 to 10 wt% , encompa s ses the requirement of claim 8 . It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976). Claims 1-2, 6 - 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 3, 8, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11 390748 in view of Lim (WO 2019/028013; for convenience patent family US 2020/0207985 applied). Regarding claims 1 -2 , 6 -7, 9 , patented claim s 1 , 3 discloses the first organopolysiloxane and second organosiloxane, silane with 2 alkoxy group, 0.05 to 5 parts by weight UV light photoinitiator, and condensation catalyst, wherein patented claim 8 discloses the UV light photoinitiator comprises at least one of 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenyl phosphine oxide, bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphine oxide, or ethyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenylphosphinate (read on liquid), and patented claim 11 discloses photopolymerization inhibitor/radical scavenger. Patented claims do not disclose the radical scavenger in an amount of 0.001 to 2 wt%. However, Lim discloses a dual cure organopolysiloxane composition comprising a first organopolysiloxane and a second organopolysiloxane (para [0013], [0020]-[0026], bisacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator such as bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphine oxide and a liquid photoinitiator such as 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-1-one (para [0028] , [0084] ), a condensation catalyst (para [0029]), a silane with an average 2 hydrolysable groups such as alkoxy per molecule (para [0076]-[0077), and radical scavenger such as hydroquinone in an amount of 0.029 wt% (para [0094], table 1, ex 1; 0.04 parts per 139.6 of total amount of the composition), fall into claimed range of 0.001 to 2 wt% . At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified patented claims with the aforementioned teachings of Lim to provide radical scavenger such as hydroquinone in an amount of 0.029 wt% in order to use such composition as dual curing agent . Since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.06(11) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair& Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc vAg-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988). Further, t he rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Lim that to do so would provide excellent curability (Lim, para [0010]). Regarding claim 8 , patented claim 1 discloses the concentration of the condensation catalyst is 0.01 to 10 wt%, encompasses instant claimed range of 0.01 to 5 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the composition where the patented claim discloses the concentration of the condensation catalyst is 0.01 to 10 wt% , encompa s ses the requirement of claim 8 . It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976). Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 3, 8, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11 390748 in view of Lim (WO 2019/028013; for convenience patent family US 2020/0207985 applied) as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 4889905). Patented claims include the features of instant claim 1 above. Regarding claim 5, Patented claims do not disclose the concentration of the first organopolysiloxane is sufficient to provide a molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups from the first organopolysiloxane to alkenyl groups from the second organopolysiloxane and, if present, third organopolysiloxane that is 0.3 or more and 5.0 or less . However, Suzuki discloses a similar polysiloxane composition comprising a combination o f the alkenyl and mercaptoalkyl functionalized polysiloxanes as well as photoinitiator and condensation catalyst, wherein the silane components for the condensation cure contains ethylenically unsaturated and alkoxy moieties, wherein the blend of the polysiloxane contains the molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups to alkenyl groups is 0.3:1 to 5:1, wherein the molar ratio less than 0.3:1 leads to poor curability and higher than 5:1 leads to foul odor (column 1, lines 61-, column 3, lines -63). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Patented claims as taught by Suzuki to have molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups to alkenyl groups is 0.3:1 to 5:1 . The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Suzuki that to do so would provide a proper and odorless curability . Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 3, 8, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11 390748 in view of Lim (WO 2019/028013; for convenience patent family US 2020/0207985 applied) as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2023/0193029). Patented claims include the features of instant claim 1 above. Regarding claim 10, Patented claims do not disclose the claimed structure of the second organopolysiloxane. However, Liu discloses a UV/moisture dual curable organopolysiloxane composition comprising a first organopolysiloxane comprising an average of 2 or more mercaptoalkyl groups per molecule and that is free of alkenyl functionality and a second organopolysiloxane comprising at least one alkenyl group and at least one alkoxy group in one molecule (claims) with the formula 281940 30480 0 0 358140 350520 0 0 At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified patented claims with the aforementioned teachings of Leu’s second organopolysiloxane structural formula comprising at least one alkenyl group and at least one alkoxy group in one molecule in order to use such composition as dual curing agent . Since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.06(11) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair& Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc vAg-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988). Further, t he rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Liu that to do so would enhance substrate adhesion (Liu, para [0005]). 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. Claim s 1-2, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (WO 2019/028013; for convenience patent family US 2020/0207985 applied). Regarding claim s 1 , 6, 9 , Lim discloses a dual cure organopolysiloxane composition comprising a first organopolysiloxane comprising at least one alkenyl group and at least one alkoxy group in one molecule (para [0013]; read on claimed second 1014730 632460 0 0 organopoly - siloxane), a second organopolysiloxane of formula wherein R 9 to R 14 are each substituted or unsubstituted C 1 to C 10 alkyl , R 15 and R 16 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C 1 to C 20 alkyl, at least one of R 17 and R 18 is a mercapto group or monovalent hydrocarbon group comprising a mercapto group , p is an integer ranging from 0 to 100 and q is an integer ranging from 2 to 100 (para [0020]-[0026]; read on claimed first organopolysiloxane), bisacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator such as bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphine oxide (para [0028]), a condensation catalyst (para [0029]), a silane with an average 2 hydrolysable groups such as alkoxy per molecule (para [0076]-[0077), and radical scavenger such as hydroquinone in an amount of 0. 029 wt% ( para [0094 ] , table 1, ex 1; 0. 04 parts per 139.6 of total amount of the composition) , fall into claimed range of 0.001 to 2 wt% , meeting the requirements of claims 1, 6, 9 . Regarding claim 2 , Lim discloses a liquid photoinitiator such as 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-1-one (para [ 0084]). Regarding claim 7 , Lim discloses bisacylphosphine oxide photoinitiator in an amount of 0.36 wt% (para [00 28 ], table 1, ex 1; 0.5 parts per 139.6 of total amount of the composition) , fall into claimed range of 0.01 to 5 wt% . Regarding claim 8 , Lim discloses a condensation reaction catalyst in an amount of 0. 57 wt% (table 1, ex 1; 0. 8 parts per 139.6 of total amount of the composition) , fall into claimed range of 0.01 to 5 wt%. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 4889905). Lim includes the features of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 5, Lim does not disclose the concentration of the first organopolysiloxane is sufficient to provide a molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups from the first organopolysiloxane to alkenyl groups from the second organopolysiloxane and, if present, third organopolysiloxane that is 0.3 or more and 5.0 or less . However, Suzuki discloses a similar polysiloxane composition comprising a combination of the alkenyl and mercaptoalkyl functionalized polysiloxanes as well as photoinitiator and condensation catalyst, wherein the silane components for the condensation cure contains ethylenically unsaturated and alkoxy moieties, wherein the blend of the polysiloxane contains the molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups to alkenyl groups is 0.3:1 to 5:1, wherein the molar ratio less than 0.3:1 leads to poor curability and higher than 5:1 leads to foul odor (column 1, lines 61-, column 3, lines -63). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Lim as taught by Suzuki to have molar ratio of mercaptoalkyl groups to alkenyl groups is 0.3:1 to 5:1 . The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Suzuki that to do so would provide a proper and odorless curability . Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2023/0193029). Lim includes the features of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 10 , Lim does not disclose the claimed structure of the second organopolysiloxane. However, Liu discloses a UV/moisture dual curable organopolysiloxane composition comprising a first organopolysiloxane comprising an average of 2 or more mercaptoalkyl groups per molecule and that is free of alkenyl functionality and a second organopolysiloxane comprising at least one alkenyl group and at least one alkoxy group in one molecule (claims) with the formula 167640 -53340 0 0 167640 266700 0 0 At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lim with the aforementioned teachings of Leu’s second organopolysiloxane structural formula comprising at least one alkenyl group and at least one alkoxy group in one molecule in order to use such composition as dual curing agent . Since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.06(11) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair& Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc vAg-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988). Further, t he rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Liu that to do so would enhance substrate adhesion (Liu, para [0005]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4807 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9.00 AM to 5.50 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1302 . 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. /KUMAR R BHUSHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766