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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the preamble:
Claims 1, 12 and 19, set forth a method for preparing a “tailorable stress” adhesive. It is deemed the term “tailorable stress” only requires the adhesive to have the ability to adapt stress responses and management strategies based on individual needs and circumstances. As written, it is not possible to determine with certainty when said claim is infringed, i.e., when the adhesive is “able” or has the “ability” to be tailored for stress. Is the adhesive tailored pre-curing, i.e., composition phase? Is the adhesive tailored post-cured, i.e., the finished and bonded adhesive product/article stage. Additionally, it is unclear what type of stress is tailorable or intended to be tailored by the method. Does applicant intend for adhesive to have tailored tensile stress, shear stress, cleavage stress, peel stress, thermal stress, curing stress etc. Does applicant intend for all or one or none (i.e., different non-listed stress) to be tailored? Clarification is requested.
Regarding step 1 of the method:
Claims 1,12 and 19: set forth a step of “determining a target stress and strength” for the tailorable adhesive in the preamble. Applicant has not set forth how the “determining” is to be obtained in the claims. It is unclear how a “target stress and strength” can be determined on the product to be made by the claimed method. Does applicant intend for this first step to mean, a skilled artisan can choose any stress, such as set forth above, associated with a known adhesive? Does applicant intend for this limitation to mean for a selection/determination of reaction components which will allow the stress and strength properties to be tailorable, such as introduction of monomers having dynamic bonds (disulfide/sulfide bonds, for instance) or bond dissociation energies of potential monomers for making said adhesive? Does applicant intend for “determining a stress and strength” to mean testing methods for determining stress, such as rheological methods, thermal methods (DSC), x-ray or neutron diffraction, on said tailorable adhesive? It is unclear is applicant intends for this “determining…for the tailorable adhesive” (understood to be cured/bonded adhesive) to be in the beginning (composition or monomer selection phase); during (curing phase) or in the end (obtained after curing of composition phase). Is applicant intending the determination of the target stress and strength to mean quantitative measurable numbers, such as reduction by 30 % or less the 0.5 mm in shrinkage? Does applicant intend for said target stress to mean stress during polymerization or after polymerization? Clarification is requested.
Regarding step 2 of the method of claims 1, 12, and 19:
Step 2 requires “determining a photoinitiator concentration”. The claim is silent with regard how said “determining” is to be accomplished. Are the concentrations determined by absorption maximum? Are the concentrations determined by curing exposure methods? Are the concentrations determined by trial and error (combinatorial assay or study)? Are the concentrations determined by intended curing methods, such as UV, visible, electron beam, gamma, infrared and/or thermal/heating? Clarification is requested?
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19: The examiner is interpreting the limitation “target stress and strength” to mean residual curing stress and bonding strength of said adhesive, as set forth in the disclosure (PGPub US2004/0368439) at section [0017].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 19-20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Czech et al (Polym. Bull. 2013).
Czech sets forth UV-initiated crosslinking of photoreactive acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive using excimer laser. Czech sets forth investigating the properties, such as tack, peel adhesion, shear strength, and shrinkage of self-adhesive polymer layers using UV excimer-laser and UV-lamps as UV sources. Czech sets forth it is known the performance, such as tack, peel adhesion, shear strength, and shrinkage of photoreactive acrylic adhesives are to a degree determined by photoinitiator type and concentration and by UV-crosslinking process—see page 480, 3rd full paragraph.
Czech sets forth preparing a series of photoreactive acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives in ethyl acetate of a monomer mixtures comprising between 93.0 and 94.9 wt. % of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (corresponding to claimed monomer), 5 wt. % of acrylic acid (corresponding to applicant’s claimed monomer) and between 0.1 and 2.0 wt. % (exactly 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 wt.%) of unsaturated copolymerizable photoinitiators, ABP; ACCP, and BA (copolymerizable hydrogen abstraction type photoinitiators, see table 1) with 0.1 wt. % AIBN under thermal conditions to obtain 50 wt. % of polymeric PSA content (considered to correspond to applicant’s curing). Said polymeric PSA is than UV crosslinked by coating said photoreactive PSAs onto a polyester film or silicone paper than transferred to a PVC, drying and exposing for 20 seconds with an UV excimer-laser having a wavelength of 315 nm (see table on pate 482) and 20 sec using a conventional UV lamp to obtained a crosslinked PSA (considered to read on applicant post-curing technique).
Czech subsequently evaluated said crosslinked adhesives for tack, peel adhesion, shear strength, and shrinkage. Czech observed that tack is sensitive to variations of crosslinking time and variations of photoinitiator concentration. It was notices tack decreased with increase of yielded free radicals, wherein the largest tack drop was observed with small photoinitiator concentrations of photoinitiator ABP and the best tack was observed with the use of copolymerizable photoinitiator ABP—see figure 2. Regarding the peel adhesion, it was observed the best peel adhesion was obtained in sample exposed with UV-excimer lamp sources—see figure 3. Regarding shear strength the best observation were seen in all PSAs that were exposed/crosslinked using UV-excimer lamps when compared with those exposed/crosslinked with conventional UV lamps—see figure 5. It was additionally observed the incorporation of copolymerizable photoinitiators strongly influenced the shear strength properties of the crosslinked adhesives after exposure with the UV-lamp—see figure 5. After UV exposure an increase of the concentration of the copolymerizable photoinitiators produced higher network density, thus leading to higher cohesion when compared with convention photoinitiators, i.e. non-copolymerizable photoinitiators—see figure 6. Regarding the shrinkage, it was observed that all tested copolymerizable photoinitiators tended to generate the overall best shrinkage resistance which suggests continued crosslinking when using UV excimer lamps. It was, also, seen the best copolymerizable photoinitiator that offered higher shrinkage resistance as the photoinitiator ABP-see paragraph on page 486 and figures 7 and 8.
Czech relates to claims 1 and 19 since Czech teaches stress and strength can be tailored by selecting a copolymerizable photoinitiator and crosslinking monomeric/pre-polymeric containing compositions by exposure with a UV excimer laser vs. convention UV-curing lamps.
Regarding claim 2 and 19-20: Czech sets forth during shrinkage testing the UV crosslinked PSAs (curing technique UV) after holding for 4 weeks at a temperature of 60 deg. C (post-thermal curing technique)—see page 483, 2nd full paragraph.
Regarding claims 7, 10 and 25: Czech sets forth using copolymerizable photoinitiators in concentrations from between 0.1 to 2.0 wt. %--see page 481, paragraph under table 1.
Regarding claim 8 and 19: The compositions comprise no filler content—see experimental section.
Regarding claim 11: Said PSAs are obtained from acrylic monomers, acrylic acid and ethylhexyl acrylate.
While Czech does not expressly set forth the steps as found in the instant claims, Czech does shows strength vs. stress is enabled through crosslink density which is controlled, at least in part, by the photoinitiator type and the exposure type is known. Thusly, a skilled artisan concerned with tailoring the stress vs the strength or stress and strength balance of an adhesive can be obtained by photoinitiator choice, such as copolymerizable photoinitiators vs conventional photoinitiators, as well as, the type of energy used for exposure/crosslinking of said adhesive, i.e., UV excimer lasers vs conventional UV lamps is obvious in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JPH08507094 sets forth gamma radiation post cure in photopolymerized resin compositions increases hardness. Lu et al (10,780,206) adds a polymerization inhibitor (TEMPO) to the initiator system to help reduce polymerization stress via nitroxide-mediated polymerization. Bowman et al (9,758,597) sets forth reducing polymerization induced shrinkage stress by reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer. Lee et al (J. Mater. Res, 2001) sets forth photoinitiator concentration and exposure dosage effect the cure depth photocurable materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights