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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“…forces applied by said DMA against said elastic disc are…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwata (U.S. Patent 5,209,566) in view of Ober et al. (“Polymer Science: A Comprehensive Reference,” 2012; chapter 8, section 8.01.1.11 “Adhesives and Sealants,” p. 5 of the attached copy).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kuwata discloses a system for dynamic mechanical analysis (col. 1, lines 51-55) of an adhesive (col. 2, line 37; Kuwata does not disclose that the adhesive is a polymer, however, it is well-known in the art that adhesives can be polymers: see the Ober reference, below), the system comprising:
a stationary crucible 11 (col. 2, line 15) for receiving therein an adhesive 10 (col. 2, lines 37-38);
a movable plunger 14 (col. 2, line 16) operative to apply shear forces on the adhesive (implicit, the force applied will include shear forces on the sample); and
a dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) 16/18 (sensor, recorder: col. 2, lines 34-36) comprising a movable shaft 14 coupled to said plunger (as shown in Fig. 1).
Kuwata does not disclose that the adhesive is a polymer.
However, Ober discloses that adhesives can comprise polymers (see chapter 8, section 8.01.1.11 “Adhesives and Sealants,” p. 5 of the attached copy).
Since the art recognizes that a polymer is suitable for the intended testing device/method of Kuwata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kuwata’s device/method so that the adhesive is a polymer, as taught by Ober – see MPEP 2144.07.
The apparatus of Kuwata in view of Ober, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 4, Kuwata discloses said plunger 14 is movable in oscillatory axial motion (col. 2, lines 37-41).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Kuwata discloses said plunger 14 is configured to apply the shear forces on the polymer (per the combination with Ober, see above) while the polymer is in a liquid state (col. 1, lines 38-46; col. 2, lines 46-52).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Kuwata discloses said plunger 14 is configured to apply the shear forces on the polymer (per the combination with Ober, see above) while the polymer is in a solid state (col. 2, lines 61-65).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Kuwata discloses said plunger 14 is configured to apply the shear forces on the polymer (per the combination with Ober, see above) while the polymer is in a transition between a liquid state and a solid state (col. 1, lines 38-46; col. 2, lines 52-58).
Regarding claim 14, Kuwata discloses exposing said crucible to variable temperatures (col. 1, lines 48-50).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwata (U.S. Patent 5,209,566) in view of Ober et al. (“Polymer Science: A Comprehensive Reference,” 2012; chapter 8, section 8.01.1.11 “Adhesives and Sealants,” p. 5 of the attached copy), and further in view of Afromowitz (U.S. Patent 4,904,080).
Regarding claim 15, Kuwata’s modified method is applied as above, but does not disclose irradiating said crucible with electromagnetic radiation.
Afromowitz discloses irradiating said crucible with electromagnetic radiation (in order to monitor the solidification of the composition: col. 2, lines 32-45; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kuwata’s method to include irradiating said crucible with electromagnetic radiation.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 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.
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852