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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/10/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 27-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The original elected method involves separate first and second containers, while these new claims require containers that are a single article with compartments separated a partition between the compartments.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 27-36 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as being anticipated by Batdorf (USPN 4,070,225).
In Example 3 and Example 6, Batdorf teaches a method for preparing an adhesive by combining polyamide resin (adhesive additive) in a n-propyl alcohol solution, then adding to that polyamide resin solution, a pre-mixture comprising water and talc (filler), and mixing.
Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) are met.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. (US 2012/0263836).
In ¶’s 15, 16 and 65, Carlson et al. teach application of an adhesive by first preparing a Part (B) comprising isocyanate-terminated polyurethane prepolymer and a Part (A) comprising a polyol, where the two parts are kept separate prior to the application, and are mixed immediately before application; wherein either Part A or Part B include adhesion promoters, non-reactive resins, organic solvents, fillers, surfactants, and mixtures thereof.
Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) are met.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uto et al. (JP H1192728).
In the Abstract and Examples, Uto et al. teach mixing a resin in a device with an organic solvent, then adding a water-soluble filler solution, and further mixing until uniform.
Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are met.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muranaka (JP 2000297269).
In the Abstract and ¶ 7, Muranaka teach a two-component curable adhesive, each component is stored in a separate container or tube, one component comprising a basic resin and the other comprising an inorganic adhesive filler, such as talc and calcium carbonate.
In ¶ 7, Muranaka teach the components are separated by a water-dispersible sheet, such that introduction of the adhesive filler and the adhesive resin, each with solvent, occurs before application.
Further, in ¶ 15, Muranaka teach that each of the two-components may be put in separate containers made of a water-dispersible sheet, and combined and mixed along with water at the time of application.
Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are met.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batdorf (USPN 4,070,225), Carlson et al. (US 2012/0263836), Uto et al. (JP H1192728), Muranaka (JP 2000297269) in view of Noda et al. (JP 2004292745) or Arai et al. (JP 2006124414).
While each of Batdorf, Carlson et al., Uto et al. and Muranaka, above, do not explicitly recite more solvent added to the adhesive after the initial mixing of the components, it would have been obvious to ordinary workers in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional solvent in order to adjust the viscosity of the adhesive, such as taught by Noda et al. and Arai et al.
Each of Noda et al. and Arai et al. teach adding additional solvent to two pack adhesive compositions after mixing the components, before or after application to the substrates, in order to control the viscosity of the adhesive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to add additional solvent to the mixed adhesives of Batdorf, Carlson et al., Uto et al., or Muranaka, in order to obtain the advantage of viscosity control taught by Noda et al. or Arai et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments against Batdorf, Carlson, or Uto, in the claims, the items to be introduced to the solvent to prepare the adhesive is a quantity of “adhesive additive components” and a quantity of “adhesive filler component”, not the actual non-reactive unsealed packaging material used to contain the items prior to addition/mixing. Whether the containers are buckets, barrels, batches, cans, bags and/or other unsealed containers, it has no effect on the process as claimed, so long as the “adhesive additive component” and “adhesive filler component” are mixed.
The references teaching mixing of the specific quantities of the “adhesive additive components” and “adhesive filler components” meet the claims. It is noted that the quantities to be added are necessarily predetermined prior to mixing. There is nothing in these claims that would limit the time between when the quantities are determined and placed in a container prior to the mixing with the solvent. Factory or assembly-line preparation of a multi-phase system are not excluded for the present claims “comprising” the recited adding and mixing steps, and the term “at a jobsite” would in no way exclude either .
Regarding Carlson, two-part liquid adhesive comprising a Part A
polyol and a Part B are "kept separate prior to the application, and are mixed immediately before the application" are not excluded by the terms “at a jobsite” as there is nothing in these claims that would limit the time between when the quantities are determined and placed in a container prior to the mixing in the solvent.
Regarding Uto, "mixing a resin with an organic solvent, and then mixing in a water-soluble filler and knead[ing] the mixture until uniform" is not excluded from the present claims, even if the mixing is being done in bulk with a manufacturing plant as the “jobsite”; the resin is necessarily separately contained from the water-soluble filler prior to mixing in the solvent.
Regarding Muranaka, while applicant argues that the filler is included in the resin container, the present claims do not exclude fillers from the first container with the resin, as it qualifies as an “additive”, and is not excluded by the term “comprise…”.
Regarding Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to add additional solvent to Batdorf, Carlson et al., Uto et al., or Muranaka in view of Noda et al. or Arai et al. after mixing the components, in order to obtain the advantage of viscosity control taught by Noda et al. or Arai et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE
Prosecution Insights