Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/837,409

BONDED ARTICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 09, 2024
Priority
Feb 28, 2022 — JP 2022-028976 +1 more
Examiner
FLORES JR, DONALD M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toray Industries Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
467 granted / 609 resolved
+16.7% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
638
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 609 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . STATUS OF CLAIMS Claims 1-8 are pending in the application. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 9 August 2024. 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. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (CN 102555359 A) in view of Leonard et al. (WO 95/16754 A1). Regarding Claim 1: Nishiyama discloses a three-layer structure comprising a warp-knitted interlining laminated to both sides of a film by adhesive resin, wherein the warp-knitted interlining is bonded [fully] on one side of the film, and wherein the warp-knitted interlining is spot bonded on another side of the film, the spot bonding covering 10% to 90% of the surface of the film ([0013], [0027], [0041], [0054], [0058], and [0060]-[0063] of Nishiyama). Specifically, Nishiyama provides for --a bonded article comprising: at least a first adherend, a second adherend, and an adhesive material interposed between the first adherend and the second adherend, wherein the adhesive material includes at least a first adhesive resin layer, a second adhesive resin layer, and a base material layer interposed between the first adhesive resin layer and the second adhesive resin layer, the first adhesive resin layer is in contact with the first adherend, the second adhesive resin layer is in contact with the second adherend, a peel strength of the first adherend measured on the basis of JIS L1086 (2020) 7.10 is lower than a peel strength of the second adherend, and a surface area of the second adhesive resin layer is smaller than a surface area of the first adhesive resin layer--. Nishiyama fails to disclose --a peel strength of the first adherend measured on the basis of JIS L1086 (2020) 7.10 is lower than a peel strength of the second adherend--. Leonard discloses a tape (ref. #10) comprising a backing (ref. #12) with first adhesive layer (ref. #140 on surface (ref. #11) and a second adhesive layer (ref. #16) on major surface (ref. #13), wherein the second adhesive layer has longitudinal channels (ref. #17) and is non-coextensive with the first adhesive layer and the backing (figure 1 and [Pg. 7: li. 20-25] of Leonard). Leonard also discloses that each adhesive utilized may be the same as, or different than, the others, wherein the tape can have different tack and/or adhesion if desired by employing different adhesive materials ([Pg. 8: li. 12-19] of Leonard). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the double-sided tape of Leonard with the adhesive material disclosed by Nishiyama in order to have --a peel strength of the first adherend measured on the basis of JIS L1086 (2020) 7.10 is lower than a peel strength of the second adherend--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the double-sided tape of Leonard with the adhesive material disclosed by Nishiyama, from the stand-point of having a tape with different adhesion on its opposing surfaces ([Pg. 8: li. 12-19] of Leonard). (In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected an adhesive resin composition for the second adhesive resin layer such that the second adherend has a greater peel strength than the first adherend from the first adhesive resin layer adhesive, wherein the first adherend and the second adherend are the same. It being well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to compensate for the smaller area of the dot bonding of the second adhesive resin layer with an adhesive resin having a higher peel strength (compared to the first adhesive resin) to prevent delamination.) Regarding Claim 2: Nishiyama in view of Leonard discloses that a ratio of the surface area of the second adhesive resin layer to the surface area of the first adhesive resin layer is 10% to 90% ([0060]-[0062] of Nishiyama); which anticipates the claimed range of --10% or more and 70% or less--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). Regarding Claims 3 and 6: Nishiyama in view of Leonard discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly recite --a ratio of the peel strength of the first adherend to the peel strength of the second adherend measured on the basis of JIS L1086 (2020) 7.10 is 5% or more and 90% or less--. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen the first adhesive resin having a [first] peel strength having a ratio to the [second] peel strength of the second adherend of 5% or more and 90% or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). (In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio of the first peel strength to the second peel strength be relatively proportional to the percent coverage loss with respect to the surface area coverage of the base material layer (i.e., if the bonding area of the second adhesive layer to the entire surface of the base material layer is from 10% to 90%, then the ratio of the first peel strength to the second peel strength should be at least 10% to 90%, to offset the bonding area difference and prevent delamination.) Regarding Claims 4 and 7: Nishiyama in view of Leonard discloses that the first adherend and the second adherend are selected from at least a fiber knitted fabric ([0027] and [0031] of Nishiyama). Regarding Claims 5 and 8: Nishiyama in view of Leonard discloses that a ratio of a dimension of the base material layer to a dimension of the first adhesive resin layer in a short side direction of the adhesive material is 100% ([0014], [0058], and [0061] of Nishiyama). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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. /DONALD M FLORES JR/ Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12697764
MEMBERS FOR SEALING, BAFFLING, OR REINFORCING
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12686053
TUNED DIFFERENTIAL SHRINKAGE SINTER JOINING
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12679209
BENDABLE GLASS ARTICLE FOR VEHICLE INTERIOR SYSTEM HAVING IMPROVED HEAD IMPACT PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674073
Hydrophobic, Self-Healing Coating and Coated Substrate, and Fabrication Method
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12675135
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.8%)
2y 6m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 609 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month