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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed February 11, 2026. The amendment, filed February 11, 2026, is entered, wherein claim 1 is amended, claims 7 – 9 are withdrawn, and claims 2 – 6 and 10 – 13 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 7 – 9 are pending in this application and claim 1 is currently examined.
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/KR2021/007052, filed June 7, 2021, which claims benefit of foreign priority document of KR10-2020-0144030, filed November 2, 2020, and KR10-2021-0071259, filed June 2, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
These statements “Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.” is pertinent when interference arises.
Withdrawn Rejections
4. The rejection of claim 1 in the previous Office Action, mailed November 14, 2025, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement with evidence provided by Huebschmann in view of Bonini et al., Quinton, and Langsrud et al. has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 1.
The following are new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed February 11, 2026, wherein claim 1 is amended, claims 7 – 9 are withdrawn, and claims 2 – 6 and 10 – 13 are canceled. Previously and newly cited references have been used to establish new grounds of rejection.
New 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement (US3617322, cited in the previous Office Action mailed November 14, 2025) with evidence provided by Huebschmann (US3379547, cited in the previous Office Action mailed November 14, 2025) in view of Bonini et al. (US6174957B1, cited in the previous Office Action mailed November 14, 2025), Roth et al. (EP2719735A1), and Langsrud et al. (PLoS ONE, 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 10, cited in the previous Office Action mailed November 14, 2025).
a. Regarding claim 1, Clement teaches an improved dextrin adhesive composition (Abstract). The dextrin adhesive composition is prepared by mixing dextrin, and small amount of picric acid with water, and agitating and then heating the mixture. Said composition comprises 30 – 40% by weight of water and from about 55 – 70% by weight of dextrin (Col. 2, lines 10 – 16). One of the advantageous features of the picric acid is that the adhesion are preserved to a satisfactory extent even when a borax compound is added (Col. 4, lines 18 – 22).
However, Clement does not teach that the dextrin adhesive composition comprises 5 to 15% by weight of polyol compounds, wherein the polyol compounds comprise 1 to 3% by weight of 1,2-hexanediol, 3.25 to 9.75% by weight of 1,3-butanediol, 0.5 to 1.5% by weight of glycerin, and 0.25 to 0.75% by weight of ethylhexyl glycerin (EHG).
Bonini et al. teach an adhesive composition comprising 10 – 40% by weight of an aliphatic divalent, trivalent alcohol (Abstract). The aliphatic divalent, trivalent or tetravalent alcohol should be added in such an amount that the resulting adhesive composition contains 10% by weight thereof (Col. 2, lines 11 – 14). The addition of divalent, trivalent or tetravalent alcohol, instead of water, results in an adhesive composition that has a viscosity, which makes it suitable for spreading (Col. 1, lines 65 – 67; Col. 2, line 1). Suitable alcohol is 1,3-butanediol and glycerol (Col. 2, line 9).
Roth et al. teach an adhesive composition comprising a plasticizer comprising an ester of a polyol (Abstract). The polyol may be 1,2-hexanediol (para. [0060]). The plasticizer used in this invention is more efficient in lowering the T g, minimum film forming temperature, and thickening ratio of the adhesive, while maintaining or improving other important properties of the adhesive, such as setting speed, tensile strength, and elongation (para. [0011]). The adhesive composition can comprise less than 10%, for example 3 to 7% of plasticizer by weight of the polymer (para. [0064]).
Langsrud et al. teach that preservatives are added to prevent product spoilage and the concentration of preservatives should be kept as low as possible (Abstract). Langsrud et al. disclose that the same level of leakage was observed at a concentration of EHG that was nine fold lower than that of 2-phenoxyethanol (PE), indicating a higher permeabilizing effect of the former. Also, the electron microscopy showed similar severe damage of E. coli cells after exposure to EHG at lethal concentrations as for PE despite EHG concentrations were 10 fold lower (page 12, para. 1). The maximum logarithmic kill found for EHG in these experiments is around 3.5 (0.125% and 0.15% EHG after 24h exposure). Higher concentrations could not be tested because of low solubility in water (page 5, para. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dextrin adhesive composition as taught by Clement with 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, and 1,2-hexanediol in view of Bonini et al. and Roth et al. because Clement teaches an adhesive composition and Bonini et al. and Roth et al. teach the possible components of an adhesive composition. One would have been motivated to combine the dextrin adhesive composition as taught by Clement with 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, and 1,2-hexanediol in view of Bonini et al. and Roth et al. because Bonini et al. teach that the addition of 1,3-butanediol and glycerol will enhance the physical properties of the adhesive composition and Roth et al. discloses that the use of 1,2-hexanediol will maintain or improve other important properties of the adhesive. It would have been obvious to combine because the combination will yield predictable and improved formulation of a dextrin adhesive composition. For EHG, Huebschmann teaches that dextrin pastes tend to spoil in the absence of a preservative (Col. 1, lines 42 – 43). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dextrin adhesive composition as taught by Clement, Bonini et al. and Roth et al. with EHG in view of Langsrud et al. because Langsrud et al. teach that EHG induces the cell damage that is as severe as that caused by PE, which is a common preservative. One would have been motivated to combine the dextrin adhesive composition as taught by Clement, Bonini et al. and Roth et al. with EHG in view of Langsrud et al. because Langsrud et al. teach that the concentration of EHG used to achieve the same preserving property is 10 fold lower than PE. For the amounts of each component in the composition, one would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best amount for the optimal adhesive properties. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the dextrin adhesive composition as taught by Clement with 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, and 1,2-hexanediol in view of Bonini et al. and Roth et al. and to combine the dextrin adhesive composition as taught by Clement, Bonini et al. and Roth et al. with EHG in view of Langsrud et al. because it is known in the art that dextrin, 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, and 1,2-hexanediol are used in adhesive composition and the combination of dextrin, 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, 1,2-hexanediol, and EHG will yield predictable and improved formulation of an adhesive composition.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered and are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection, Applicant argues that the previously cited references do not teach or suggest the features recited in the amended claim 1. However, the argument is moot because new grounds of rejection have been established based on Clement, Bonini et al., Roth et al. and Langsrud et al. Clement teaches a dextrin adhesive composition, Bonini et al and Roth et al. teaches 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, and 1,2-hexanediol, respectively, with the motivation to combine, and Langsrud et al. teach that EHG is a preservative that requires only a very small amount. The combination of teachings renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding the unexpected results, Applicant refers to Tables 2 to 13 of the specification (page 14 - 16; para. [0052]) and claims that the specific combination of 1,3-butanediol, glycerol, 1,2-hexanediol, and EHG having the claimed ranges exhibits an excellent adhesive force and water-separability effect. However, Applicant’s data are not persuasive to demonstrate unexpected results. Although the tables show somewhat higher adhesive strength for certain examples containing 5 – 15% total polyol compounds by weight, the evidence does not isolate the effect of that claimed feature. Multiple formulation parameters, including the individual types and ratio of polyols, the dextrin and solvent contents, and other compositional variables, were changed simultaneously. Preventing a fair comparison. No controls were provided in which only the total polyol percentage varied while other components remained constant, and no data were submitted showing consistent results across the entire 5 – 15% range or for different individual polyol compositions, for examples, varying glycerin, 1,2-hexanediol, or 1,3-butanediol independently. Therefore, the examiner is not able to determine whether the results are unexpected.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
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 HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is 571-270-0265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, SCARLETT GOON can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/H.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights