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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 7/27/2026. Claims 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Holubka et al. (US 2010/0151236) “fails to describe selecting a third power level for an exposed adhesive strip that both activates adhesive-surface functional groups and prevents cross-linking and/or chain scission within the adhesive.” See Response filed 7/27/2026, page 7. Applicant rationalizes that Holubka et al. does not consider power and a control parameter. However, the Examiner notes even if it is true Holubka et al. does not consider power as a control parameter, that this not dispositive for the claim limitations being satisfied. Nothing in the claim recites adjusting power level during the process. If the plasma in Holubka et al. achieves the claimed results of activating functional groups on the top surface and generating negligible cross-linking or chain scission internally, the claim is satisfied because the power level utilized accomplishes the claimed result.
Every plasma operates at a power level with an amount of plasma energy, and an operator, simply by using the plasma at that power level and with that plasma energy, is inherently selecting the power at which the plasma is utilized and operating the plasma, including the power and energy to generate said plasma, to achieve whatever result occurs from the treatment. If the selected plasma at a given power generates negligible cross-linking and/or chain scission within the adhesive strip, then it is at a power level and with a plasma energy to generate a controlled amount of the plasma energy to carry out the function it accomplishes. See MPEP 2145(II).
The Examiner notes the Applicant admits Holubka et al. teaches performing the adhesive plasma treat “to increase oxygen-containing surface functional groups and form a higher-oxygen surface chemistry while the remainder of the adhesive is typically substantially untreated.” See Response filed 7/27/2026, page 7. This suggest the power level of the plasma is selected and controlled to do exactly as Applicant now claims: to functionalize the surface, but leave the interior of the adhesive “untreated,” i.e. with polymer chains that are cross-linked or broken. Any plasma device power is inherently selected by using it at the power and any process utilizing plasma energy to achieve a result can be said to control the energy to create that result. Even creating plasma at all involves the device (such as the Plasmatreat RD-1004 head in Holubka et al., pages page 4-5, paragraph [0068) controlling plasma energy to create a stable plasma for treatment. Thus, because the claimed result of treatment is satisfied, the claim is satisfied because all plasma treatment devices operate at a power level and control plasma energy to some extent as an inherent function of operating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holbuka et al. (US 2010/0151236).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 10, Holbuka et al. teaches a method to produce an adhesive joint (See Abstract), the method comprising:
plasma treating a first substrate [20] at a first power level to form a plasma-treated first substrate surface; plasma treating a second substrate [22] at a second power level to form a plasma-treated second substrate surface (See page 3, paragraphs [0040] and [0046], wherein both substrates [20],[22], in addition to the adhesive, are treated with cold plasma; note any plasma device operates a some power level);
plasma treating a top surface and a bottom surface of an exposed adhesive strip [24] at a third power level to form a plasma-treated exposed adhesive strip (See page 2, paragraph [0026], pages 3-4 paragraphs [0051]-[0057], inidicating both sides of an adhesive on a carrier, i.e. an adhesive strip, are treated with cold plasma via an APAP device, thus oxidizing the surface to increase surface energy and chemical bond density by increasing oxygen composition via surface functional groups containing oxygen wherein the chemistry below the surface, i.e. the bulk material between the surface, remains “substantially unchanged,” see specifically, page 3, paragraph [0030], page 4, paragraph [0052], and Claim 29). Holbuka et al. clearly utilizes a plasma generated by a commercial plasma device that inherently operates at a plasma level and with a controlled amount of plasma energy (See pages 4-5, paragraph [0068], and note commercial devices inherently control the energy of the plasma they generate). Any such plasma operates at a power level and generates a controlled amount of plasma energy to achieve whatever result occurs during the treatment. The plasma power level and controlled plasma energy emanating from the plasma device in Holbuka et al. generates/activates functional groups containing oxygen while leaving the bulk interior of the adhesive unchanged, which means crosslinking and chain scission is prevented.
Holbuka et al. further teaches joining the plasma-treated first substrate surface and the plasma-treated second substrate surface together with the plasma-treated exposed adhesive strip (See page 3, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 3 showing joining first substrate [20] and second substrate [22] via adhesive [24]); and curing the plasma-treated exposed adhesive strip to produce the adhesive joint (See page 3, paragraph [0043], wherein the adhesive “cross-links” with the bonding substrate in a process reasonably described as “curing;” further note the adhesive may comprise well-known curable adhesives that require curing to implement the bond, such as epoxies, moisture cure urethanes and silicones, cyanic-acrylics, etc. that are understood to require curing to set the bond, see page 3, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claims 2, 7, and 8, Holubka et al. teaches the substrates may be different, such as thermoplastics and/or metals (See page 3, paragraphs [0048] and page 8, paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Holubka et al. teaches the treatment is designed to increase surface functional groups on the substrates, such as by creating increased hydroxyl and carbonyl functional groups (See page 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0027], teaching the adhesive itself and the surfaces of the components to be bonded may be functionalized).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holubka et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Hehemann et al., Plasma treatment of polymers for surface and adhesive improvement, Nuclear Instruments and Method in Physics Research B, pgs. 281-286 (2003) (hereinafter “Hehemann”) and Neuhaus-Steinmetz et al. (US 2014/0154425).
Regarding Claim 3, Holubka et al. teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above. Holubka et al. further teaches plasma treat both the adhesive and substrates to functionalize these layers for crosslinking, and achieve desired reactivity (See page 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0036]). Holubka et al. fails to teach different power levels on the substrates and the adhesive. However, it is known that functionalizing different surfaces for cross-linking requires different plasma conditions to achieve the same desired effect, including by changing plasma intensity, i.e. power levels, (See, for example, Hegemann, page 281, Abstract and Introduction), and it is explicitly known in similar process to apply different plasma conditions to a substrate and adhesive surface to be bonded (See, for example, Neuhaus-Steinmetz et al., pages 4-5, paragraph [0055], teaching applying type of plasma treatment to the adhesive surface and substrate surface to be bonded). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to adapt the plasma treatment conditions, including the power level, to the surface to be treated. Doing so would have predictably allowed the treatment to be adapted to the material to be treated to increase functionally for crosslinking. When using the same substrates to be bonded to an adhesive that requires more subtle treatment conditions, it would have been obvious to use than same power conditions on the substrates that are higher than the adhesive so as to maximize functionally on each surface.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holubka et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Van Tooren et al. (US 2017/0044337).
Regarding Claim 6, Holubka et al. teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above. As described above, Holubka et al. also teaches the adhesive may be epoxy, but fails to teach any specifics with said epoxy (See page 3, paragraph [0042]). However, curing agents are well-known to be utilized with epoxy adhesive, including with plasma functionalized surfaces (See, for example, Van Tooren et al., page 5, paragraph [0059] and page 7, paragraph [0087]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize curing agent with the epoxy. Doing so is conventional in epoxy adhesives to facilitate curing and form a strong bond.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holubka et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2015/0151514) and/or Hosoda et al. (US 2018/0154614).
Regarding Claim 11-12, Holubka et al. teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above. Holubka et al. is silent as to bonding conditions, but it would have been apparent pressure is standard in bonding and that the conditions of bonding are generally catered to the substrates and adhesives utilized and plasma treated materials are known to be known under pressure at high temperature (See, for example, Kikuchi et al., page 7, paragraph [0146], page 8, paragraph [0189], and page 10, paragraphs [0237]-[0240] and [0263], teaching bonding processes for plasma functionalized layers wherein epoxy is bonded to substrates at pressures of 5 MPa and a temperature of 150 C; and/or Hosoda et al., page 4, paragraph [0075] and page 14, Table, teaching pressing temperatures of bonding polymer and metal to a plasma functionalized layer as being 150-240 C). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to press at high temperatures of at least 150 C. Doing so would have predictably enabled curation of the pressing conditions to the material under condition known to be suitable for similar materials in similar plasma activated system. Higher temperature further would have facilitated crosslinking by applying more energy during bonding, thus improving bond strength.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights