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 Application
Claims 25-36 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed methods. In particular, Applicant argues that Brann teaches a dual-cure method and fails to teach that the composition is polymerized to completeness via irradiating the fiber unit as required by claim 25 as Brann teaches a moisture cure. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that the claims do not exclude providing a second composition simultaneously which is cured with moisture. As outlined by Brann a first composition that is radiation curable is applied in combination with a second composition that is moisture curable (see Example 1, which includes radiation-curable component composition and moisture-curable component composition). Additionally, the UV irradiation step will cure the radiation curable composition to completeness, thereby meeting the limitations of the claim as presented. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Brann teaches the claimed steps.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 35, that the method excludes additional curing steps using the language “consisting of”. However, “consisting of” doesn’t exclude additional steps after the completion of the steps of the method. The curing via humidity is after completely curing the photocurable composition with radiation step (c) (see Example 1). Therefore, Brann’s process steps (a) to (c) do not include the humidity curing step; therefore, Brann meets the limitations of claim 35.
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.
1. Claim(s) 25-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brann (U.S. Pat. No. 5409740) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3700643).
Regarding claims 25-36, Brann teaches a process consisting of: providing a composition (abstract); applying the composition onto and into a filament fiber unit for binding the fiber units (abstract); and then irradiating the obtained fiber unit with radiation in the range of 200-400 nm to polymerize the composition to a completely cured polymer (column 10, lines 13-17). Brann teaches the composition free from water (see throughout and Example 1, column 9) and comprising: an acrylate functionalized polyurethane having two or more acrylate groups prepared from an NCO prepolymer and a hydroxy functionalized dimethacrylate (claims 6 and 7), a radical photoinitiator (claim 18), such as a benzophenone (column 7, lines 55-59), in an amount of 5-10 % (column 8, lines 13-17), and a monoacrylate diluent (claim 15), such as cyclohexyl acrylate (claim 16) which has a molecular weight of about 154 and a viscosity of about 6-10 mPa•s. Brann teaches that the fiber can be selected from a group including polyamide (claim 2) and that the polyurethane can also be combined with a polyester (claim 5). Brann fails to explicitly teach the molecular weight and the viscosity of the polyurethane and the cured polymer having an elongation at break as claimed.
However, Brann teaches that the acrylated polyurethanes can be prepared according to U.S. Pat. No. 3700643 (column 6, lines 56-65) which is Smith et al. Furthermore, Smith teaches a process of preparing radiation curable (abstract) acrylated polyurethanes wherein the polyurethane can have a viscosity of 16900 mPa•s (Example 9, column 20-21) and a molecular weight in the range as claimed (see table column 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brann’s process by using an acrylated polyurethane having a molecular weight and viscosity as claimed as disclosed by Smith. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Brann specifically teaches that the process can use the polyurethanes as disclosed and made by Smith. Therefore, one could have substituted Smith’s acrylated polyurethanes with a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result of providing a curable composition for binding fibers. Furthermore, Brann in view of Smith teach an essentially identical process using identical types of polymers to that claimed and would inherently yield a polymer with the claimed elongation at break.
Conclusion
Claims 25-36 are pending.
Claims 25-36 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
August 25, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights