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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 20220035075 A1) [IDS dated: 07/22/2025], herein Rao.
In regards to claim 1, Rao teaches a composite article comprising an organic solid crystal layer (115), a substrate (105), with an adhesive/alignment layer deposited on the substrate/workpiece (110) which bonds the crystal layer [Abstract, 0072-0073, 0171, 0190, Fig. 1A].
In regards to claim 2, Rao further teaches the solid organic crystal is a single crystal [0186].
In regards to claim 10, Rao further teaches the solid organic crystal is bonded/adhered to the alignment/adhesive layer disposed on the substrate at a planar surface [Fig 1A, 0064, 0068].
In regards to claim 11, Rao further teaches the solid organic crystal is bonded/adhered to the alignment/adhesive layer disposed on the substrate at a non-planar surface due to the presence of non-planar features in the alignment/adhesive layer [Fig 1A, 0064-0065, 0085, 0087].
In regards to claim 12, Rao further teaches the alignment/adhesive layer is disposed on the substrate and contacts the solid organic crystal layer disposed on top of the alignment/adhesive layer [Fig 1A, 0064, 0084, 0113, 0190].
In regards to claim 13, Rao teaches a composite article comprising an organic solid crystal layer (115), a substrate (105), with an adhesive/alignment layer (i.e., a functional adhesive) deposited on the substrate/workpiece (110) [Abstract, 0072-0073, 0171, 0190, Fig. 1A].
In regards to claim 16, Rao further teaches the solid organic crystal is bonded/adhered to the alignment/adhesive layer disposed on the substrate at a planar surface [Fig 1A, 0064, 0068].
In regards to claim 17, Rao further teaches the solid organic crystal is bonded/adhered to the alignment/adhesive layer disposed on the substrate at a non-planar surface due to the presence of non-planar features in the alignment/adhesive layer [Fig 1A, 0064-0065, 0085, 0087].
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12-13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weibo et al. (CN 117327246 A), herein Weibo.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 117327246 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1, Weibo teaches a compound article comprising an asparagus polyurea elastomer substrate/workpiece, an optical grade acrylic adhesive layer and an ethylene terephthalate optical base film (PET layer) (i.e., an organic solid crystal) [Lines 95-103, 244-249, Fig. 1].
In regards to claim 3, Weibo teaches the substrate/workpiece is an asparagus polyurea elastomer (i.e., a polymer) [lines 13-14, 36-44].
In regards to claim 10, Weibo further teaches the adhesive layer is adhered to the planar surface of the PET layer [Lines, 244-249, Fig. 1].
In regards to claim 12, Weibo further teaches a compound article comprising an asparagus polyurea elastomer substrate/workpiece, an optical grade acrylic adhesive layer and an ethylene terephthalate optical base film (PET layer) (i.e., an organic solid crystal) [Lines 95-103, 244-249, Fig. 1]. The asparagus polyurea elastomer substrate/workpiece is then directly adhered to the ethylene terephthalate optical base film (PET layer) (i.e., an organic solid crystal) via the optical grade acrylic adhesive layer.
In regards to claim 13, Weibo teaches a compound article comprising an asparagus polyurea elastomer substrate/workpiece, an optical grade acrylic adhesive layer (i.e., a functional adhesive) and an ethylene terephthalate optical base film (PET layer) (i.e., an organic solid crystal) [Lines 95-103, 244-249, Fig. 1].
In regards to claim 16, Weibo further teaches the adhesive layer is adhered to the planar surface of the PET layer [Lines, 244-249, Fig. 1].
In regards to claims 18 and 20, Weibo teaches a method of forming a compound article comprising treating the surface of a PET layer (i.e., a solid organic layer) with a plasma then forming an OCA adhesive layer on the PET layer before attaching to the Aspartum polyurea elastomer layer (i.e., solid substrate) [lines 244-249, 459-466, Fig. 1].
Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yongbing et al. (CN 104064615 A), herein Yongbing.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 104064615 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1, 8-10 and 12, Yongbing teaches a compound article comprising a metal substrate, a conductive adhesive layer comprising a polymer matrix and conductive metal particles dispersed within the matrix and an outer PET layer (i.e., an organic solid crystal) directly connected to each other [lines 93-99, 101-115, 269-270, Fig. 2].
In regards to claim 13 and 16, Yongbing teaches a compound article comprising a metal substrate, a conductive adhesive layer comprising a polymer matrix and conductive metal particles dispersed within the matrix and an outer PET layer (i.e., an organic solid crystal) directly connected to each other [lines 93-99, 101-115, 269-270, Fig. 2].
In regards to claim 18, Yongbing teaches a method of forming a compound article comprising a metal substrate, a conductive adhesive layer comprising a polymer matrix and conductive metal particles dispersed within the matrix disposed on the metal and an outer PET layer disposed on the other side of the adhesive layer (i.e., an organic solid crystal) [lines 93-99, 101-124, 269-270, Fig. 2].
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (Hydrogen-Bonding-Facilitated Layer-by-Layer Growth of Ultrathin Organic Semiconducting Films), herein Jeong.
In regards to claims 1, 10, and 12, Jeong teaches a compound article comprising a substrate with layer-by-layer growth of thin film crystals of conjugated organic molecules which is facilitated by their hydrogen-bonding capabilities [Abstract]. The layers comprise bis(3-hydroxypropyl)-sexithiophene (bHP6T), which includes two hydroxyalkyl groups that promote interlayer and intermolecular molecular interactions during the crystal growth process [Abstract, Fig. 1]. Here the first monolayer is considered the adhesive layer that directs and allows the formation of the second monolayer surface (i.e., organic solid crystal) [Introduction].
In regards to claims 6-7, Jeong teaches the first monolayer (i.e., the adhesive layer) has hydroxy groups that form hydrogen bonds with the substrate and the second monolayer surface (i.e., organic solid crystal) [Abstract, Fig. 1, Introduction]. Thus, X is oxygen and Y is hydrogen. It is noted that the type of bonding is not specified thus even van der Waals bonds would meet the limitations.
In regards to claims 13 and 16, Jeong teaches a compound article comprising a substrate with layer-by-layer growth of thin film crystals of conjugated organic molecules which is facilitated by their hydrogen-bonding capabilities [Abstract]. The layers comprise bis(3-hydroxypropyl)-sexithiophene (bHP6T), which includes two hydroxyalkyl groups that promote interlayer and intermolecular molecular interactions during the crystal growth process [Abstract, Fig. 1]. Here the first monolayer is considered the adhesive layer that directs and allows the formation of the second monolayer surface (i.e., organic solid crystal) [Introduction].
In regards to claim 15, Jeong teaches the first monolayer (i.e., the adhesive layer) has hydroxy groups that form hydrogen bonds with the substrate and the second monolayer surface (i.e., organic solid crystal) [Abstract, Fig. 1, Introduction]. Thus, X is oxygen and Y is hydrogen. It is noted that the type of bonding is not specified thus even van der Waals bonds would meet the limitations.
In regards to claim 18, Jeong teaches method of forming a compound article comprising a substrate with layer-by-layer growth of thin film crystals of conjugated organic molecules which is facilitated by their hydrogen-bonding capabilities [Abstract]. The layers comprise bis(3-hydroxypropyl)-sexithiophene (bHP6T), which includes two hydroxyalkyl groups that promote interlayer and intermolecular molecular interactions during the crystal growth process [Abstract, Fig. 1]. Here the first monolayer is considered the adhesive layer that directs and allows the formation of the second monolayer surface to bond to the substrate (i.e., organic solid crystal) [Introduction].
In regards to claim 19, Jeong teaches the first monolayer (i.e., the adhesive layer) has hydroxy groups that form hydrogen bonds with the substrate and the second monolayer surface (i.e., organic solid crystal) [Abstract, Fig. 1, Introduction]. Thus, X is oxygen and Y is hydrogen. It is noted that the type of bonding is not specified thus even van der Waals bonds would meet the limitations.
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.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 20220035075 A1) [IDS dated: 07/22/2025], herein Rao as applied to claim 1 set forth above.
In regards to claim 3, Rao teaches the substrate/workpiece is a polymer [0074, 0190].
Rao differs from claim 3 by teaching polymers in a list of possible substrate materials, such that it cannot be said that the polymer species is anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the protective layers taught by Rao, including a polymer. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 4, Rao does not expressly teach that the substrate is porous.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a porous substrate as the substrate of Rao. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20220035075 A1), herein Weibo, as applied to claims 1 and 13, in further view of Sadeghzade et al. (Soft acrylate monomer-based optically clear adhesive for foldable electronics: Mechanical characterization and fractography analysis under large strain), herein Sadeghzade.
In regards to claims 4 and 14, Weibo teaches the adhesive layer is an optical grade acrylic adhesive layer [lines 95-100]. Weibo not expressly teaching the adhesive is a crosslinked polymer.
Sadeghzade teaches crosslinked optical grade acrylic adhesives [Abstract, Sec. 2.2]. Sadeghzade expressly teaches the 7EHA crosslinked adhesive has excellent modulus and elasticity regardless of temperature and can be applied in various temperature ranges [Sec. 3.5]. Sadeghzade expressly teaches the adhesive has high fatigue as well [Sec. 3.7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the crosslinked optical grade acrylic adhesive of Sadeghzade as the optical grade acrylic adhesive of Weibo. One would have been motivated to do so based on the excellent modulus and elasticity as well as high fatigue of the adhesive.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 20220035075 A1) [IDS dated: 07/22/2025], herein Rao as applied to claims 1 and 13 as set forth above, and in further view of Pfeiffer et al. (A comparison of thermally and photochemically cross-linked polymers for nanoimprinting), herein Pfeiffer.
In regards to claims 5 and 14, Rao teaches the alignment/adhesive layer is a nanoimprint layer but does not expressly teach that the layer is a crosslinked polymer.
Pfeiffer teaches polymers for nanoimprint layers [Abstract]. Pfeiffer teaches that the polymers for nanoimprint layers are cross-linking polymers [Abstract]. Pfeiffer teaches such polymers have good imprint resolution and mechanical and thermal stability [ Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the either of the nanoimprint cross-linking polymers of Pfeiffer as the polymer of the nanoimprint layer of Rao. One would have been motivated to do so based on the cross-linked polymers good imprint resolution and mechanical and thermal stability. Additionally, as Pfeiffer teaches the cross-linking polymers are conventionally known as nanoimprint polymer one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongbing et al. (CN 104064615 A), herein Yongbing, as applied to claims 1 and 13 as set forth above.
In regards to claim 4,Yoingbing does not expressly teach that the substrate is porous.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a porous substrate as the substrate of Yongbing. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the layers taught by Yongbing, including a polymer. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claims 5 and 14,Yoingbing does not expressly teach that the polymers of the adhesive layer are crosslinked.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a crosslinkable composition as the epoxy or acrylic polymer adhesive of Yongbing. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, one would have been motivated to do so based on the improved physical properties of the resultant crosslinked polymer in the adhesive layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights