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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, the word “fist” should be --first--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, it is unclear what is meant by “from a surface of the first adhesive layer opposing to the second adhesive layer” and “a surface of the second adhesive layer opposing to the first adhesive layer”. It is suggested this be changed to “first adhesive layer opposite the second adhesive layer” or “on the side opposite the second adhesive layer”. It is noted that often, when things are opposing one another, they are facing one another across a space.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al.(JP 2017-052950A) in view of Lei et al.(US Publication 2018/0134926).
Akiyama et al. discloses an adhesive sheet comprising a first adhesive layer with a curable resin and an expanding material([0025]-[0028]), and a second adhesive layer with a curable resin without the expanding material([0042];[0044]) which can be inserted in a gap and expanded to fill the gap between articles. It teaches the adhesive laminate expands over 200% which would be a foaming ratio between 1 and 8.5.[0014] The reference discloses the second adhesive can have tack but does not require it. It does not teach the amount of tack the adhesive layers. Lei et al. teaches an adhesive sheet for inserting into gaps and indicates that when the adhesive is intended to be inserted into a gap, it ids advantageous if the adhesive is tack free so it can be more easily maneuvered into position.[0068] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make the adhesive layers of Akiyama et al substantially tack free, i.e. a tack of less than 10 gf since this would allow easier insertion into gaps as taught by Lei et al.[0068]
Regarding claim 2, while the references cited are silent as to the specifics of the relative static friction coefficients, there are only three choices. The static coefficient is greater for the expandable adhesive, greater for the non-expandable adhesive, or they are the same. As there are only a finite number of identifiable predicable solutions, they are obvious alternatives to one another and within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine which to use absent unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, the cohesive failure rate is high when the foaming ratio is within the claimed range according to the specification. Since the foaming ratio of Akiyama et al. and Lei et al. is within the claimed range, one in the art would expect the cohesive failure rate to be high, such as over 25% since it has the same characteristics the specification indicated cause a high cohesive failure ratio.
Regarding claim 4, Akiyama et al. teaches a layer between the two adhesives.[0038]
Regarding claim 5, Akiyama et al. teaches placing the adhesive sheet between two items and foaming and curing it to bond them.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights