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 § 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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everaerts (EP 0859819) in view of Malik et al. (“The thermally controlled molecular disassembly properties of a polymer network via the incorporation of one sterically hindered urea linkage. Polymer Degradation and Stability”, Polymer Degradation and Stability vol. 76, 2002, 241-249).
Regarding claim 5, Everaerts teaches a crosslinked acrylic heat-activatable adhesive (paragraph [0001]) comprising monomers (paragraph [0034]), crosslinking agent (paragraphs [0049]-[0055]) and photoinitiator (paragraphs [0056] and [0065]-[0066]).
Everaerts teaches acrylates are useful crosslinkers (paragraphs [0052] and [0054]) but fails to teach the structure as claimed.
However, Malik et al. teaches cross-linkers containing a molecule represented by the structure as claimed (page 243, section 2.3.2) wherein each R1 is -CH3, each X is C2 alkyl, and each R2 is C1 alkyl group. Malik et al. further teaches the use of the molecule in adhesives (page 241).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a crosslinker represented by the structure in the curable composition of Everaerts in order to produce intractable polymers which have longevity in adhesive strength (Malik et al., pages 241 and 249).
Regarding claim 6, Everaerts teaches wherein the first monomer comprises a (meth)acrylate monomer (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Everaerts teaches wherein the initiator comprises a photoinitiator (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Everaerts teaches wherein the curable composition comprises 0.05 wt.% to 3 wt.% of the crosslinker (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Everaerts teaches further comprising a second monomer (paragraphs [0034], [0039] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, the composition of Everaerts does not require protic monomers and therefore is essentially free of protic monomers as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Everaerts teaches further comprising inorganic particles, i.e. filler (paragraph [0077]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everaerts (EP 0859819) in view of Malik et al. (“The thermally controlled molecular disassembly properties of a polymer network via the incorporation of one sterically hindered urea linkage. Polymer Degradation and Stability”, Polymer Degradation and Stability vol. 76, 2002, 241-249) and further, in view of Brown et al. (US 3,578,622).
Everaerts in view of Malik et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12, Everaerts teaches further comprising chain transfer reagent (0069).
Everaerts fails to teach an amount of chain transfer reagent.
However, Brown et al. teaches a sprayable adhesive composition comprising chain transfer agents in an amount of from about 0.03% to about 0.3 % (col. 3, lines 40-49) which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 wt.% to 5 wt.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include choose amounts, including that presently claimed, for the chain transfer agent of Everaerts in order to improve adhesion and tack of the adhesive (Brown et al., col. 3, lines 42-43).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everaerts (EP 0859819) in view of Malik et al. (“The thermally controlled molecular disassembly properties of a polymer network via the incorporation of one sterically hindered urea linkage. Polymer Degradation and Stability”, Polymer Degradation and Stability vol. 76, 2002, 241-249) and further, in view of Kelch et al. (US 6,042,930).
Everaerts in view of Malik et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 13, Everaerts teaches further comprising tackifier (paragraph [0077]).
Everaerts fails to teach an amount of tackifier.
However, Kelch et al. teaches a heat-activated adhesive comprising up to about 50% by weigh of tackifier (col. 7, lines 40-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose amounts, including that presently claimed, for the tackifier of Everaerts in order to improve the molten adhesive flow and "wet-out" characteristics (Kelch et al., col. 7, lines 40-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787