DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/26 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.
Claims 1, 4 to 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/100965, as interpreted by the English language equivalent to Sawada et al., US 2022/0002591.
Sawada et al. teach an adhesive composition referred to therein as the adhesive
(A). As can be seen from paragraph 18, this includes polysiloxane (A1) which contains both SiH siloxanes and Si-vinyl siloxanes, as well as a platinum group catalyst (A2). In a similar manner the claimed are directed to an adhesive that includes a polysiloxane (A1) and a platinum catalyst (A2).
Both catalysts (A2) are platinum catalysts that initiate cure between SiH and vinyl siloxanes. As such Sawada et al. anticipate claimed (A2).
Claimed component (A1) requires an SiH siloxane as component (a2). Sawada et al. teach an SiH siloxane as component (a2) in paragraphs 21, 71 and 75, as well as other locations. This meets claimed (a2).
Claimed component (A1) requires an alkenyl containing siloxane as component (a1). Sawada et al. teach an Si-vinyl siloxane as component (a1) and includes combin-ations of such polymers. See paragraphs 55 to 61 and 69 to 77. This generally teaches polyorganosiloxanes that embrace claimed (a1), (V) and the MQ resin.
Of particular importance the Examiner draws specific attention to the composition in Preparation Example 1, paragraph 159. This shows a combination of a vinylated MQ resin having an Mw of 6,900. This meets the “polymer different from the polymer (V)” found in newly amended claim 1. and a polydimethylsiloxane having terminal vinyl units. From this the skilled artisan would have expected this combination of (a1) siloxanes to be a preferred embodiment and would have been motivated to experiment and optimize such a combination.
As such the composition in Preparation Example 1 differs from that claimed in that 1) the linear siloxane meeting claimed (V) does not have a Mw of 60,000 or greater and 2) this does not contain a release agent.
As for the first difference, see paragraph 77 which teaches that the Mw for these siloxanes is in the range of 500 to 1,000,000. This embraces the range of 60,000 or more such that the skilled artisan would have found the selection of a siloxane having an Mw within the claimed range to have been obvious. The Examiner acknowledges that the claimed range is outside the preferred range in Sawada et al. but patentees are neither limited to or by their preferred ranges.
As for the second difference, please see paragraphs 89 to 114 which teaches the addition of a polysiloxane that meets the claimed release modifier which regulates adhesion.
For instance paragraphs 102 to 107 teach polydimethylsiloxanes which meet claimed (B) as well as the structure in claim 6. Paragraph 112 teaches a molecular weight range that embraces the range found in claim 4.
In this manner each of the claimed requirements of claims 1, 4 and 6 are either anticipated by or are within the broader teachings of Sawada et al. As such, the skilled artisan would have found these claims to have been obvious at the time of the instant invention.
For claim 5 note that paragraph 106 teaches a viscosity as high as 2,000,000 mm2/s. While this is not the complex viscosity, one having ordinary skill in the siloxane art would recognize that this reflects a silicone having a gum consistency. Such a gum will necessarily meet the claimed viscosity requirement because it has very limited, if any, flow under ambient conditions. Note that applicants use a siloxane gum as the additive in the instant working examples.
For claims 7 to 9, see paragraph 24 which teaches a semiconductor substrate. See also paragraphs 155 and 156 which teach the method by which the semiconductor is prepared as well as the laminate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
4/27/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights