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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/25/2026, has been entered.
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.
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 1, 4, 6-11, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwith (US20180237661, herein Ledwith), in the view of Mullen (WO2017168001, herein Mullen, US20190031921 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 7, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form [0028] comprising trimethylol propane tri(meth)acrylate (“TMPTMA”), diethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (“TRIEGMA”) [0124] and desirably liquid components whether encapsulated or not [0037] collectively indicate the non-encapsulated liquid anaerobically curable monomer; The composition is thus typically in a liquid form and may be dispensed [0008]; and the anaerobic curable composition contains a liquid monomer [0034] which collectively indicate the monomer forming a liquid phase.
Ledwith teaches an anaerobically curable monomer, it may be present in an amount of from about 40 to about 90% by weight based on the total weight of the composition [0081]; and in general where a composition of the invention includes an anaerobically curable monomer in liquid form this will be less than 50% of the overall anaerobically curable monomer present [0085], hence, the liquid monomer range is less than 45% based on the total composition, which overlaps the claimed range.
Ledwith teaches “anaerobically curable monomer; solid” [0068] including: “polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomers” [0124, which is 2-methacryloxyethylphenylurethane with a melting point of about 70-75° C. [0117] and RRT600 melting point of about 75-85° C [0146] both lie in the claimed temperature range; “anaerobically curable monomer; solid blended product.” [0074] with “particle size from about 20 μm to about 500 μm” [0076] which encompasses the claimed size range.
Ledwith further teaches the total monomer composition is 45-70% [P9; Table 1], and the monomer component above is desirably all solid monomer, but optionally can include up to about 20% (of the overall composition by weight) of liquid monomer. [0162], therefore, collectively lead the solid monomer range into (45-70%)x0.8=36% to 56%, which overlaps the claimed range.
Ledwith further teaches “curing component is in liquid form” [0034] which reads on curing component within the liquid phase.
Ledwith is silent on propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester, however, Mullen teaches “propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester is available under the tradenames ATLAC 382” [0138] as toughening agent [0064], in the range of “The propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester may be present in an amount of about 15 to about 45 wt %” [0023] which encompasses the claimed range.
Ledwith and Mullen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of anaerobically curable threadlocking compositions, serve in metal-metal bonding for securing nuts and bolts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ledwith to add the teachings of Mullen and provide wherein said “propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester is available under the tradenames ATLAC 382” [0138] as toughening agent [0064], and the range of “The propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester may be present in an amount of about 15 to about 45 wt %” [0023] into the composition development. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of the threadlocking compositions for securing for example nuts and bolts.
The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting surfaces such as close-fitting metal surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [0015], and furthermore, compositions of the invention comprising propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester proved particularly effective at bonding steel substrates [0086], wherein, the propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester also resulted in enhanced tensile strength performance when compared to composition without toughening agent [0148], as collectively taught by Mullen.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 4, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form as set forth in claim 1 above. Ledwith teaches curing component; 5% by weight [0089] which lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 8, 17, 19, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form as set forth in claim 1 above. Regard to the viscosity and stability, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s).
However, Ledwith and Mullen teach the anaerobically curable composition with all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Ledwith teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as flowable particulate form [0060], by the invention can be made and/or applied to a substrate [0039]. The reactive solid components may be melted and blended together and other components can then be added [0033]; thus form a solid matrix in which the other components are held [0033]; and further active cooling [0165] lead to dry to the touch after a short time [0118].
The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. viscosity, stability, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical compounds and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 9, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form as set forth in claim 1 above. Ledwith teaches the reactive solid components may be melted and blended together and other components can then be added [0033] furthermore, thus form a solid matrix in which the other components are held [0033]; Ledwith further teaches active cooling [0165] lead to dry to the touch after a short time [0118].
Regarding Claims 10-11, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form as set forth in claim 1 above. Ledwith teaches the temperature of the bolts is reduced, the coating solidifies. The process can be expedited by active cooling [0165] as the active cooling method as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form as set forth in claim 1 above. Ledwith teaches invention can be made and/or applied to a substrate [0039]; “the reactive solid components may be melted and blended together and other components can then be added” [0033] furthermore, “thus form a solid matrix in which the other components are held” [0033]. Ledwith further teaches “cooling” [0165] lead to “the coating solidifies” [0165], which indicates the solid formation on the substrates.
Regarding Claim 16, Ledwith teaches bond the two articles together [0110] which lies in the as-claimed first substrate and a second substrate bonded together utilizing a composition.
Regarding Claim 18, Ledwith teaches “benzoyl peroxide microcapsules” [0235] reads on the as-claimed curing component which is in microencapsulated form.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ledwith (US20180237661, herein Ledwith), in the view of Mullen (WO2017168001, herein Mullen, US20190031921 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding Claims 12, 13, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form [0028]. Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition comprising “trimethylol propane tri(meth)acrylate (“TMPTMA”), diethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (“TRIEGMA”)” [0124] and desirably liquid components whether encapsulated or not [0037] collectively indicate the as-claimed non-encapsulated liquid anaerobically curable monomer; “The composition is thus typically in a liquid form and may be dispensed” [0008]; and “anaerobic curable composition contains a liquid monomer” [0009] which collectively indicate the as-claimed monomer forming a liquid phase.
Ledwith further teaches an anaerobically curable monomer, it may be present in an amount of from about 40 to about 90% by weight based on the total weight of the composition [0081]; and in general, where a composition of the invention includes an anaerobically curable monomer in liquid form this will be less than 50% of the overall anaerobically curable monomer present [0085], hence, the liquid monomer range is less than 45% based on the composition, and overlaps the claimed range.
Ledwith teaches “anaerobically curable monomer; solid” [0068] including: “polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomers” [0124, which is 2-methacryloxyethylphenylurethane with a melting point of about 70-75° C. [0117] and RRT600 melting point of about 75-85° C [0146] both lie in the claimed temperature range; “anaerobically curable monomer; solid blended product.” [0074] with “particle size from about 20 μm to about 500 μm” [0076] which encompasses the claimed size range.
Ledwith further teaches the total monomer composition is 45-70% [P9; Table 1], and the monomer component above is desirably all solid monomer, but optionally can include up to about 20% (of the overall composition by weight) of liquid monomer. [0162], therefore, collectively lead the solid monomer range into (45-70%)x0.8=36% to 56%, which overlaps the claimed range.
Ledwith further teaches “curing component is in liquid form” [0034] which reads on curing component within the liquid phase.
Ledwith is silent on propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester, however, Mullen teaches “propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester is available under the tradenames ATLAC 382” [0138] as toughening agent [0064], in the range of “The propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester may be present in an amount of about 15 to about 45 wt %” [0023] which encompasses the claimed range.
Ledwith and Mullen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of anaerobically curable threadlocking compositions, serve in metal-metal bonding for securing nuts and bolts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ledwith to add the teachings of Mullen and provide wherein said “propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester is available under the tradenames ATLAC 382” [0138] as toughening agent [0064], and the range of “The propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester may be present in an amount of about 15 to about 45 wt %” [0023] into the composition development.
Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of the threadlocking compositions for securing for example nuts and bolts. The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting surfaces such as close-fitting metal surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [0015], and furthermore, compositions of the invention comprising propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester proved particularly effective at bonding steel substrates [0086], wherein, the propoxylated bisphenol A fumarate polyester also resulted in enhanced tensile strength performance when compared to composition without toughening agent [0148], as collectively taught by Mullen.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Ledwith further teaches solid resin and/or resin monomer which themselves participate in the anaerobic curing form the carrier (for example a matrix) in which other components may be carried, for example dispersed [0033] which indicates the step of adding curing component to the dispersed solid monomer as of the reactive solid components may be melted and blended together and other components can then be added [0033]; “(ii) applying the thread locking composition to the threads of at least one article so as to fuse it by melting to the threads” [0110] which specifies the dispersion of monomer via melting/liquify; then subsequently, anaerobically curing the composition so as to chemically bond the two articles together [0110], which indicates the curing component was added/functioned after the dispersion of solid monomer as subsequent step.
Regarding Claim 14, Ledwith teaches benzoyl peroxide microcapsules [0235] reads on the as-claimed curing component which is in microencapsulated form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, first, Ledwith teaches anaerobically curable composition in flowable form [0028] lead to the compositions of the present invention have applications in metal-metal bonding, such as threadlocking compositions, for securing nuts and bolts. The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting (e.g. metal) surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [0042]. This matches the compositions of the present invention, which have applications in metal-metal bonding, such as threadlocking compositions, for securing nuts and bolts. The product also cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting (e.g. metal) surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [Instant App. US20220089920; 0092].
Second, Ledwith expressly identifies trimethylol propane tri(meth)acrylate (“TMPTMA”), diethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (“TRIEGMA”) [0124], and desirably liquid components whether encapsulated or not [0037] indicate the non-encapsulated monomer, as suitable monomers for use in the same capacity as the suitable (meth)acrylate monomers [0124] list. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Hence, Ledwith does not teach away the instant application.
In response to applicant's argument that “Ledwith does not teach liquid (i.e., flowable) anaerobically curable compositions, given its numerous explicit teachings about its solid compositions. Nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to pick and choose among the various lists and embodiments of Ledwith to formulate a liquid/flowable composition at least because Ledwith expressly disparages liquid compositions and instead encourages formulation of non-flowable, solid compositions to address liquid-derived shortcomings”, the argument is not persuasive.
In this case, Ledwith not only teaches the composition in solid format [abstract; 0021-25] as applicant pointed out, but Ledwith also explicitly teaches where the composition is in flowable particulate form and has a melting point in the range from about 30° C. to about 100° C [0028], wherein, Ledwith further explicitly teaches the resin component may be provided in a flowable particulate form; the anaerobically curable monomer may be provided in a flowable particulate form [0071] further lead to the anaerobically curable composition that is in flowable particulate form, with the performance of this threadlocker composition is at least comparable to standard liquid anaerobic or other pre-applied threadlocker compositions [0188] and lead to the compositions of the present invention have applications in metal-metal bonding, such as threadlocking compositions, for securing nuts and bolts. The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting (e.g. metal) surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [0042], matches the compositions of the present invention have applications in metal-metal bonding, such as threadlocking compositions, for securing nuts and bolts. The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting (e.g. metal) surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [Instant App. US20220089920; 0092].
Hence, Ledwith does not teach away the instant application.
In response to applicant's argument that “Ledwith expressly teaches away from compositions comprising more than 20 wt% liquid, stating: "Desirably, liquid components whether encapsulated or not make up (by weight based on the overall weight of the composition) no more than 20% of the weight of the composition. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would not have been motivated to formulate a flowable anaerobically curable composition comprising, inter alia, about 30-40 wt% non-encapsulated liquid anaerobically curable monomer”, the argument is not persuasive.
In this case, Ledwith not only teaches the liquid components no more than 20% of the weight of the composition [0037] as applicant pointed out, but Ledwith also explicitly teaches in general where a composition of the invention includes an anaerobically curable monomer in liquid form this will be less than 50% of the overall anaerobically curable monomer present [0085], wherein, Ledwith further explicitly teaches the anaerobically curable monomer, it may be present in an amount of from about 40 to about 90%, by weight based on the total weight of the composition [0081] further lead to the liquid monomer range less than 45% by weight based on the total weight of the composition and overlaps the claimed range, which further lead to the compositions of the present invention have applications in metal-metal bonding, such as threadlocking compositions, for securing nuts and bolts. The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting (e.g. metal) surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [0042], matches the compositions of the present invention have applications in metal-metal bonding, such as threadlocking compositions, for securing nuts and bolts. The product cures when confined in the absence of air between close fitting (e.g. metal) surfaces. It protects threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration [Instant App. US20220089920; 0092].
Hence, Ledwith does not teach away the instant application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights