CTNF 18/549,103 CTNF 87086 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/5/2023 was filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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. 4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The specification fails to define what properties are considered as “second generation” regarding an acrylic adhesion main agent. Applicants must show how this is a defined term of the art or remove the term “second generation”, which is indefinite. Furthermore the specification does not seem to define structurally what makes a curing agent a SGA curing agent different from just a curing agent. Both terms render the claims indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim s 1, 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2018/0037749 A1) to Wilson et al. (hereinafter Wilson) . Wilson is directed toward self-healing films. Wilson discloses in the Abstract that the self-healing protective materials include a coating or an adhesive that forms a polymeric material matrix and first and second microcapsules and that upon rupture of the first and second microcapsules, the curing agent may cause the hydrophobic film-forming agent to form a polymerized film . Wilson discloses at paragraph [0023] that the shell wall material may be either a melamine or gelatin based polymer. Wilson discloses at paragraph [0042] that the microcapsules were in an acrylic base coating. Wilson discloses at paragraph [0045] that the total amount of healing capsules is 5%. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Wilson to select each and every element as arranged I the claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 3-8 and 10 . 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2018/0037749 A1) to Wilson et al. (hereinafter Wilson) in view of the teachings of (US 2020/0039022 A1) to Kung et al. (hereinafter Kung) . Wilson is directed toward self-healing films from ruptured microcapsules within the base. Wilson discloses in the Abstract that the self-healing protective materials include a coating or an adhesive that forms a polymeric material matrix and first and second microcapsules and that upon rupture of the first and second microcapsules, the curing agent may cause the hydrophobic film-forming agent to form a polymerized film . Wilson discloses at paragraph [0023] that the shell wall material may be either a melamine or gelatin based polymer. Wilson discloses at paragraph [0042] that the microcapsules were in an acrylic base coating. Wilson discloses at paragraph [0045] that the total amount of healing capsules is 5%. Wilson discloses each and every element of a self-healing material, but is silent regarding the Shore D properties of the base materials. Kung is directed toward self-healing films from ruptured microcapsules within the base. Wilson and Kung are both directed toward self-healing films from ruptured microcapsules within the base and therefore are analogous art. Kung teaches at paragraph [0013] that a self-healing microcapsule is embedded into the base material of a polishing pad. Kung teaches at paragraph [0041] that the polishing pad with embedded self-healing microcapsules has a Shore D hardness of at least 40, but not more than 85, which reads on Applicants range of a Shore D of 60 or more. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Wilson in view of the teachings of Kung to select each and every element as arranged I the claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1 and 3-10 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 9. Claim 2 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. 13-03-01 AIA 10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a self-healing material having microcapsule shells with an elastic modulus of 20 to 85 MPa . Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 12. 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. 13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 14. 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. /JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/549,103 Page 2 Art Unit: 1766
Prosecution Insights