DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6 to 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koellnberger et al. 9,034,139 in view of Pesch et al. and Buekers et al. and further in view of Simandl et al. 7,896,053.
This rejection relies on the rationale noted in the office action dated 2/11/26, as it
then applied to claims 1 to 3, 5 and 6 to 8. This is summarized below.
Koellnberger et al. teach a temporary crosslinkable siloxane adhesive. See col.
3, lines 22 to 28. Column 5, lines 1 to 18, specifically teaches an addition crosslinking composition containing alkenyl polysiloxanes, SiH siloxanes and Pt catalyst. See also the working examples in columns 13 and 14. This meets component (A).
To this composition an adhesion promoter may be added and mixed. See col-umn 5, lines 51, which specifically refers to EP 0875536. The skilled artisan, recogniz-ing that the EP reference is not in English, would have turned to the US equivalent thereof for a teachings of appropriate and useful epoxy functional siloxanes. This leads the skilled artisan to the teachings in Pesch et al., the US equivalent and cited above.
Pesch et al. specifically refer to 5,623,026 (Buekers et al.) as teaching useful epoxy containing siloxanes. As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the epoxy siloxanes of Buekers et al. in the composition of Pesch et al. and thus, by extension, using the epoxy siloxanes of Buekers et al. in the method of Koellnberger et al.
This is the same composition prepared by mixing component (A) and (B).
See the method used in the working examples of Koellnberger et al. such as in column 14, lines 32 to 42. See also the bottom of column 11. This shows the claimed method steps of applying and bonding found in claim 6.
Koellnberger et al. refer to the composition as temporary and the substrates may be debonded but does not teach a specific method for doing so. See the Background of the Invention, such as in column 3, lines 5 to 14.
Simandl et al. teach debonding adhesives such as silicone adhesives through infrared irradiation. See column 3, lines 3 to 45. This is an alternative to heat and mechanicals means, as both can damage the substrate. See columns 1 and 2.
As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use infrared radiation as a means of debonding the adhesive in Koellnberger et al. in an effort to take advantage of the known ability and benefits thereof, as per Simandl et al. In this manner claim 6 is rendered obvious.
For claims 7 and 8, see the rationale of record on page 4 of the office action dated 1/14/25, as it presently applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ traversal has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. Appli-cants have not provided any rationale or argument as to how the amended claims over-come the rejections made in the previous office action. In fact the response does not address the rejection rationale at all or any of the teachings in the prior art. The amend-ed claims appear to merely be a combination of previous claims that have already been considered such that the rejection rationale applied to the previous claims still apply.
Applicants provide general statements that there is nothing in the applied refer-ences that would have led the skilled artisan to modify the methodology of Koellnberger in the manner necessary to arrive at the claimed features and that the Examiner has not met the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness for the amended claims.
With regard to these statements, note the rejection found in paragraph 2, supra,
as this highlights the motivation in the prior art and the obviousness of the claims. The Examiner assumes that applicants would have expected the above rejection since the amended claims include only limitations that have previously been examined and reject-ed. The remainder of the response contains an explanation of the inventive method.
In short, this response does not provide anything that would lead the skilled artisan to find the claims unobvious over the combination of references as noted supra.
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 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.
Mgm
5/18/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights