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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright (US Patent 6,866,899, with text citations to attached version with numbered paragraphs).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches a method of manufacturing an adhesive member (abstract, paras. 0021-0028, and other sections cited below), the method comprising:
providing a preliminary resin layer including a photopolymerization initiator (para. 0023) having a maximum absorption wavelength in a first wavelength range (para. 0022);
forming an intermediate resin layer by irradiating the preliminary resin layer with a first ultraviolet light having a wavelength different from the first wavelength range (paras. 0021-0022, 0025); and
forming an adhesive member by irradiating the intermediate resin layer with a second ultraviolet light having a wavelength within the first wavelength range (paras. 0021-0022, 0025).
Regarding claim 3, Wright teaches in the irradiating the second ultraviolet light to the intermediate resin layer, the first ultraviolet light having the wavelength different from the first wavelength range is not irradiated (paras. 0022-0028).
Regarding claim 4, Wright teaches in the irradiating the second ultraviolet light to the intermediate resin layer, the first ultraviolet light having the wavelength different from the first wavelength range is simultaneously irradiated to the intermediate resin layer (paras. 0021-0022, 0025).
Regarding claim 5, Wright teaches in the irradiating the first ultraviolet light, the first ultraviolet light includes sub-ultraviolet lights so that a sub-ultraviolet light having a wavelength smaller than the first wavelength range and a sub-ultraviolet light having a wavelength greater than the first wavelength range among the sub-ultraviolet lights are simultaneously irradiated (paras. 0021-0022, 0025).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim (KR 20140114469, previously made of record on an IDS filing).
Regarding claim 2, Wright teaches the predetermined time interval is determined based on a fluidity of the preliminary resin layer (paras. 0016, 0041), but does not teach the other features in the claims 2 and 6-9.
However, regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a second starting point at which the second ultraviolet light is irradiated is spaced apart from a first starting point at which the first ultraviolet light is irradiated by a predetermined time interval (Figs. 6-7), with this configuration predictably enabling sequential irradiation at different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the irradiating the first ultraviolet light and the irradiating the second ultraviolet light are performed by an ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus including a plurality of first ultraviolet emission units which irradiate the first ultraviolet light and a plurality of second ultraviolet emission units which irradiate the second ultraviolet light (Figs. 1-6), with this configuration predictably enabling sequential irradiation at different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus irradiates the first ultraviolet light while the ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus is fixed on the preliminary resin layer, and the ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus irradiates the second ultraviolet light while the ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus is fixed on the intermediate resin layer (Figs. 1-6), with this configuration predictably enabling sequential irradiation at different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus irradiates the first ultraviolet light to an entirety of an area of the preliminary resin layer, and the ultraviolet light irradiating apparatus irradiates the second ultraviolet light to an entirety of an area of the intermediate resin layer (Figs. 1-6), with this configuration predictably enabling sequential irradiation at different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the plurality of first ultraviolet emission units is arranged in a matrix form in a plan view, and the plurality of second ultraviolet emission units is arranged in a matrix form in the plan view (Figs. 1, 6-7), with this configuration predictably enabling sequential irradiation at different wavelengths.
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale A) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights