DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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.
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusaki et al. (US 2019/0194541, “Mizusaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Mizusaki teaches a curable resin ([0015]) for use in a sealing material for a liquid crystal panel ([0009]) wherein the sealant may comprise a polyfunctional thiol compound having from 2 to 6 thiol groups (see, e.g., pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-mercaptobutylate, [0137]), a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate having 3 to 6 acryl groups (dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, [0164], [0172], [0178]) and having a (meth)acrylic equivalent of 100 to 250 ([0164], dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, having a (meth)acrylic equivalent of about 100). Mizusaki additionally teaches the resin may include a polyfunctional allyl having from 2 to 4 allyl groups (e.g., triallyl isocyanurate, [0139], [0186]), and a photopolymeirziation initiator ([0143]). Mizusaki additionally teaches that these “ene” compounds may be used in combination of two or more (i.e., both a triallyl isocyanurate and a dipentaerythritol hexacrylate may be included, [0139]). Additionally, Mizusaki teaches embodiments wherein, for example, the amount of thiol is 40% by mass and the amount of “ene” compound is 30% by mass ([0165]). If, for example, the acrylate and allyl compounds were used in equal proportions to one another (i.e., splitting the amount of total “ene” compound; such a case leading to the blending of components corresponding to claimed B and C of 1.0), such a composition would have a ratio between a functional group concentration of thiol groups to the sum of polymerizable groups of allyl and acrylate of between 0.5 and 3.0 (e.g., [3*0.40/(3*0.15+3*0.15)] = 1.33). Additionally, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adjusted the amounts of each of these components in order to modify the properties of the composition as descried in the examples (see, e.g., Examples 1-10 and associated evaluations). The Examiner notes that in the case where the 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Mizusaki additionally teaches that the liquid crystal panel may have an end sealed by the curable resin composition (see Fig. 9, sealant S, [0132], [0130], [0134]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mizusaki does not teach a blending ratio of components B to C of from 0.1 to 1.0 and disagrees with the Examiner’s position that the artisan would include these components in equivalent amounts (i.e., a ratio of 1.0). The Examiner must respectfully maintain the position described in the rejections above. Mizusaki teaches that each of the “ene” compounds (i.e., allyl, acryl, and divinylbenzene compounds) “may be used alone or two or more may be used together” ([0139]). Mizusaki however does not teach the specific weight compositions for use when the compounds are to be used together. The person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be left to consider an appropriate weight ratio of the combinations. Because Mizusaki does not make mention of a preference for any one of the components, it would have been sensible and obvious for the artisan to attempt to use these “ene” components in equivalent amounts, thus providing a ratio of the components reading on B to those reading on C of 1.0.
The applicant asserts that unexpected results overcome the obviousness rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the applicant appears to have shown that the results are preferred, the applicant has failed to show that the results are necessarily unexpected and unexpected to a degree sufficient to overcome obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Please see MPEP §716.02. The burden is on the applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, commensurate in scope with the claims, and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP §716.02(b) and §716.02(d). The applicant is reminded that an affidavit or declaration must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §716.02(e). While the Examiner agrees that the criticality of the claimed ratio of B to C appears to be supported, the Examiner is unpersuaded that this ratio would not have been obvious over Mizusaki, as described above, given that the claimed ratio includes equivalent proportions of B and C.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights