DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 20 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 and 13-23 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicants amendment dated 20 January 2026. For this reason, this office action is properly made final.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11, 16, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UDDING (EP-0879856-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, UDDING teaches a filler composition comprising an unsaturated polyester (A) an monomer (B) that is copolymerizable with the unsaturated polyester (Abstract). UDDING teaches unsaturated polyesters formed using dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) (p. 3, lines 20). UDDING further teaches that its polyester can be obtained by reaction of organic compounds containing carboxyl groups and alcohol groups (p. 3, lines 10-11) with suitable alcohols including ethylene glycol (p. 3, line 16; Claim 8) and suitable carboxylic acids including fumaric acid (p. 3, line 21; Claim 8). UDDING teaches that its most preferable unsaturated polyesters contain acids which include fumaric acid and alcohols which include ethylene glycol (p. 3, lines 47-49). These most preferable unsaturated polyesters do not contain mercaptan units (p. 3, lines 42-49) and UDDING does not teach any other mercaptan-group-containing compounds. UDDING teaches that its filler composition may contain a tertiary amine as an accelerator (C) (p. 4, line 18-19) and exemplifies an amine (C) (p. 5, line 17). UDDING further teaches that its composition may contain a filler (D) and teaches many inorganic fillers including kaolin, heavy spar, shale powder, talcum, mica, glass beads and fibers, and others (p. 4, lines 31-40). UDDING exemplifies inorganic fillers including titanium oxide, talc and barium sulphate (p. 5, lines 22-24). UDDING teaches that its composition contains an initiator (E) which can be a free radical initiator such as a peroxide or a hydroperoxide (p. 4, lines 43-49). UDDING teaches formulating its filler composition without the initiator component and then mixing it with a 50% benzoyl peroxide paste with the peroxide paste being prepackaged as Lucidol BT-50 and obtained from the external vendor Akzo (p. 5, lines 52-53). That the initiator component is prepackaged satisfies the requirement of a two-part composition with the initiator interpreted as the second part of the composition and the rest of the components interpreted as the first part.
UDDING teaches that its monomer (B) component contains one or more vinyl groups and that suitable monomers include vinyl esters (p. 4, lines 1-3). UDDING specifically teaches several vinyl esters which satisfy the formula recited by the claim including vinyl propionate, vinyl pivalate and vinyl versatate (vinyl neodecanoate) (p. 4, lines 14-16). UDDING does not exemplify a vinyl ester as its monomer (B) component but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of UDDING and use a vinyl ester such as vinyl propionate, vinyl pivalate or vinyl versatate (vinyl neodecanoate) based on the teachings of the specification.
UDDING teaches that suitable monomer (B) components include vinyl ether, vinyl esters, (meth)acrylates and/or allyl type (p. 4, lines 1-3. The use of “and/or” here suggests that these components can be used in combination with each other. It would be obvious to further modify UDDING and use the vinyl ester recited in Claim 11 in combination with a vinyl ether and/or (meth)acrylate based on the teachings of the specification.
Regarding Claim 16, modified UDDING teaches the invention of Claim 11 where UDDING teaches the vinyl esters vinyl propionate and vinyl pivalate which are vinyl esters which satisfy the recited formula where R is an alkyl group with 2 carbons and 4 carbons, respectively.
Regarding Claim 20, modified UDDING teaches the invention of Claim 11. UDDING further teaches that its accelerator component may contain a metal salt (p. 4, line 19). UDDING teaches that suitable metals salts include zirconium carboxylates, manganese carboxylates and cobalt octoate or cobalt naphthenate (p. 4, lines 20-21) which are all metal salts of carboxylic acids. UDDING also teaches metal carboxylates for its water-absorbing (F) component including calcium formate, magnesium acetate, zinc acetate and aluminum acetate (p. 2, lines 45-51). UDDING does not exemplify a metal carboxylate but it would be obvious to further modify the invention of UDDING and include a metal carboxylate based on the teachings of the specification.
Regarding Claim 22, modified UDDING teaches the invention of Claim 11 where UDDING teaches a tertiary amine as an accelerator (C) (p. 4, line 18-19). UDDING teaches that its tertiary amine can be N,N-dimethylparatoluidine, N,N-bis(p-hydroxyethyl)toluidine or N,N-bis(p- hydroxypropyl)toluidine (p. 4, lines 22-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17-19 and 23 are allowed.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, UDDING (EP-0879856-A1), cited in the rejections above, teaches a dicyclopentadiene-modified unsaturated polyester, tertiary amine, filler, organic peroxide or hydroperoxide, and a reactive compound which can be the recited vinyl ester, but UDDING does not teach that its composition contains a reactive compound having a mercaptan or epoxy group. ADAMS (US-20180016435-A1), cited in the previous office action, does not teach mercaptan groups and although ADAMS suggests the modification of unsaturated polyesters with compounds containing glycidyl groups, ADAMS does not specify that its residual functionality would be epoxy as is required by Claim 1 and 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining the epoxy functionality taught in by the ADAMS reference in the previous office action have been considered and have been found convincing. These specific rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues unexpected results, arguing that UDDING does not prefer the vinyl ester component that satisfies the independent claims and that examples discloses in the instant specification show that the combination of unsaturated polyester, vinyl versatate (VV9) and trimethylolpropane triacrylate (Ex. 6) results in better curing, adhesion and sanding properties than other compositions which do not contain the vinyl ester. In response, the evidence does not support that these properties are commensurate with the scope of the claims. In particular, Claim 11 does not recite any amounts. To the extent that any improvement in these properties have been shown, it has not been shown that the improvement would hold any relative amounts of the components recited in the independent claims.
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764