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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrase of “An object of this disclosure is to provide” in line 1 of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because it states that the film “has a structure” which seems to imply the film is in a different form than as a film, because the laminate body is a structure in itself according to claim 9. It is clear from the specification that the film is in between the upper and lower electrodes and these components bonded together creates the structure. Examiner suggests replacing “has a structure” with “is” for brevity.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The language of claim 3 states that the fluoroalkyl group contains the alkenyl groups, but in ¶[0023] of the instant specification the fluoroalkyl polysiloxanes are described as having alkenyl groups attached to the siloxane chain (either terminal or by a side chain), not within the fluoroalkyl group itself. It is unclear what the scope of the claim is because it can be interpreted multiple ways, therefore the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al US20200071527A1.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Fukui teaches a curable organopolysiloxane composition for a transducer comprising an organopolysiloxane containing an alkenyl group and a fluoroalkyl group; an organohydrogen polysiloxane having SiH at both terminals of a molecular chain but not having a fluoroalkyl group; and a linear fluoroalkyl group-containing organohydrogen polysiloxane or a branched fluoroalkyl group-containing organohydrogen polysiloxane having T units, abstract. Specifically, Fukui exemplifies a composition of example 11 (see table 2 page 17 and ¶[0154-0161] for definition of components) comprising component a1) 3,3,3-trifluoropropylmethylsiloxane polymer blocked with a vinyldimethylsiloxy group at both terminals which reads on the claimed component A; B1-1) bis(dimethylhydrogen siloxy) diphenylsilane copolymer which is hydrogensiloxy terminated and reads on component B2; B2-2) 3,3,3-trifluoropropylmethylmethylhydrosiloxane copolymer blocked with a trimethylsiloxy group at both terminals, which reads on component B1; and C1) a platinum hydrosilylation catalyst, ¶[0162], which reads on component C, used in the amount of 0.133 wt%.
Fukui also adds a reinforcing filler of surface treated CABOSIL MS75D, which is fumed silica, ¶[0164], and reads on the reinforcing filler (D) of claims 1 and 4. The fumed silica is used in the amount of 15 wt.% (see tables 1 and 2 pages 16-17) which reads on claim 2.
Fukui teaches that the ratio of total silicon-hydride in B1 and B2 to vinyl groups in the compositions is 1.3 mol to 1 mol, ¶[0165] which is the denominator portion of the claimed formula of px1. Also in tables 1 and 2, the ratio of the hydride amounts is listed as B1H/B2H for each example. Example 11, which has both types of silicone hydrides, has a B1H/B2H equal to 1.0. This means the claimed ratio of HB1/HB2 in the numerator of the formula is also 1.0. Therefore to calculate the px1, it is 1.0/1.3 = 0.77 for example 11 which anticipates the range.
Fukui does not include an adhesion promoter (E) in the examples, but teaches adding adhesive improvers comprising organic functional alkoxysilane compounds to improve the adhesion of the composition to a substrate, ¶[0099].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the invention of Fukui but adding an adhesion promoter with the motivation of producing an organopolysiloxane composition for transducers with improved adhesion to a substrate as taught by Fukui.
Regarding claim 3, Fukui teaches the fluoroalkyl group containing organopolysiloxane (a1) has at least two alkenyl groups and where at least 10 mol% or more of all substituent groups on the silicon atoms are fluoroalkyl groups represented by (CpF2p+1)-R, where R is an alkylene group having a carbon atom number of 1 to 10, while p is an integer of 1 or more and 8 or less, ¶[0045].
Regarding claim 5, Fukui is silent as to the storage modulus of the organopolysiloxane composition after it is cured, but applicant states in ¶[0032-0033] of the instant specification that if the px1 is outside of the claimed range, the storage modulus will not be suitable and that if the px1 is within the range of 0.1-6.0 the storage modulus will be improved, and that if the reinforcing filler is within the claimed range, the storage modulus will not be too high ¶[0046]. Therefore because Fukui teaches the composition comprising the same fluoroalkyl alkenyl polysiloxanes and hydrogen functional siloxanes with a px1 within the claimed range and reinforcing filler well within the claimed range, the skilled artisan is reasonably suggested that the cured compositions inherently have the claimed storage modulus.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Fukui teaches curing the composition ¶¶[0110-0112], forming a cured product in the form of a film or sheet for a transducer, ¶¶[0117-0119].
Regarding claim 9, Fukui teaches a laminate body made by laminating the cured film layer(s) (also called the dielectric layer) of the composition to electrode layers on both ends ¶¶[0122, 0138], also see figure 2 where the composition as the dielectric layers 20a, 20b, and 20c are laminated to electrode layers 21a, 21b, and 21c.
Regarding claim 10, Fukui does not explicitly teach that there is a chemical bond formed between the interface of the cured composition and the electrode layer, but does teach that the adhesive improvers are added to the composition to improve the adhesion of the composition to a substrate, ¶[0099], and organic functional alkoxysilanes are known adhesion promoters that form bonds with substrates, therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan that the compositions of Fukui would form chemical bonds with the electrode layer substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Fukui teaches the composition forms the dielectric layer between electrode layers ¶¶[0122, 0136] and shown in figure 1 where the dielectric layers 10a and 10b are sandwiched between the upper and lower electrode layers.
Regarding claim 13, Fukui teaches a method for forming the laminate structure by applying the curable organopolysiloxane composition onto a substrate, curing the composition to obtain an organopolysiloxane cured product layer, ¶[0123], and the substrate can be the electrode layer, ¶[0124].
Regarding claims 14-15, Fukui teaches a transducer member and transducer comprising the laminated body comprising the curable organopolysiloxane composition, ¶¶[0112, 0133-0135].
Regarding claim 16, Fukui teaches electronic components that use the transducer comprising the laminate body comprising the curable organopolysiloxane composition, such as sensors, actuators, power generation elements, ¶¶[0134-0135] and a display apparatus, ¶[0001, 0112].
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 6 and 11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Fukui teaches the viscosity of the composition is preferably between 100-500,000 mPa-s ¶[0105], but Fukui does not teach at what shear rate this viscosity is measured, nor does Fukui suggest what the viscosity should be at different shear rates in order to calculate the thixotropic index. It is not obvious to the skilled artisan what the thixotropic index would be for the compositions because thixotropic behavior of siloxanes is affected by many variables and is not necessarily related to the overall viscosity of the composition, but rather related to its change in viscosity under specific shear rates. The thixotropic index is easily affected by the ingredients, their type, the amounts, and the molecular weights; such as the different surface treatments on fumed silica, the different organic functional groups on the polysiloxane chains and even the different types of alkoxysilane adhesion promoters can affect a change in viscosity under different shear rates. Examiner notes that it is entirely possible that the compositions of Fukui have the claimed thixotropic index, but is unable to confirm.
Fukui furthermore does not teach the electrode layer is made of thermoplastic resins. Fukui teaches the electrode layer is made of metals and alloys and conductive resins such as PEDOT, polyaniline, and polypyrrole, ¶[0131], but these resins are not considered thermoplastics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, 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.
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.
/V.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/MARC S ZIMMER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights