DETAILED ACTION
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-20, and 22-25 as amended are pending, with claims 12-14 and 16 withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11, 15, 17-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0083563 (“Grun”) as evidenced by WO 2018/071920 A1 (“Johnston”).
As to claims 1, 3, 5, 17, and 22, Grun teaches a reactive resin component. Example 1 of Grun teaches a reactive resin component, in this example, a urethane (meth)acrylate, and a filler (para. 0143). Grun teaches examples of filler being quartz (a silicon oxide), of average particle size of 4 micrometers (para. 0146), and present in 56 weight percent. While the calculated percentage of particles from this amount is slightly higher than the recited range, Grun teaches that the d50 particle size of the filler ranges from 50 micrometers down to 1 micrometers. Given this range, it is reasonable to presume that providing treated silicon oxide particle sizes in ranges (for example, having d50 of just above 4 micrometers) would provide the recited amount of particles below 4 micrometers in the composition, and is therefore an obvious modification within the range of Grun.
Grun teaches the addition of methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (para. 0143), which is a silane recited in claim 3. Grun teaches that the silane added in this way serves to modify the filler in situ (para. 0014). Grun also teaches modifying the filler with the silane compound prior to mixing (para. 0011).
Grun differs from the recited component in that the exemplified component does not have 60 wt % of inorganic material (example 1 calculated as 58.94 wt %). However, the use of additional thixotropic agents, such as pyrogenic silica, can be added in amounts from 0.5 to 20 wt % (para. 0051). In addition, other inorganic fillers having greater particle size can be added in amounts from 0 to 90 wt % (para. 0052). As such, the modification of Grun, including using inorganic materials in excess of 60 wt % and overlapping the range of 60 to 90 wt % required by claim 22, is an obvious modification suggested by Grun.
Grun teaches the use of a curable urethane methacrylate as the radically curable unsaturated compound. Based on the production set forth in example 2, paras. 0151-0153, it is calculated that the urethane methacrylate is composed of approximately 35 wt % butanediol dimethacrylate, 55 wt % of the reaction product of hydroxypropyl methacrylate and PMDI, thus the urethane methacrylate having at least difunctionality, and approximately 10 wt % of residual hydroxypropyl methacrylate after reaction. The product of PMDI and hydroxypropyl methacrylate is calculated to be in excess of 230 g per unsaturated bond. While Grun does not state the viscosity, it is reasonable to presume that the viscosity of this product is in excess of 2500 mPa s, as evidenced by Johnston, para. 0088, suggesting that urethane adducts of diphenylmethane diisocyanate with hydroxypropyl methacrylate provides a high viscosity resin, and as such, the resin of Grun meets the condition (i) as required by claims 1, 5, and 17.
As to claims 2 and 15, while not exemplified, Grun teaches the fillers may be quartz or silicates, and may be modified with other metals including calcium, iron, titanium, or sodium (para. 0024). As such, the use of the recited fillers is an obvious modification suggested by Grun as appropriate fillers.
As to claims 7, 19, and 20, Grun does not exemplify the third compound. However, Grun teaches the use of diluents, including polyethylene glycol dimethacrylates (para. 0056) (ethoxylated glycol dimethacrylate), as well as numerous other compounds (para. 0055), that are diluents (i.e., low viscosity), which have the recited molecular weight per unsaturated double bond (para. 0058, teaching PEG400DMA and PEG600DMA), and which applicant acknowledges as having the recited viscosity at specification, pp. 17-18. Grun teaches that such a diluent may be used in amounts up to 80 wt % of the total of the diluent and urethane methacrylate (para. 0055), and thus encompasses the amounts of embodiments (iii) and (iv) of claim 1, and thus meets the recitation of claims 19 and 20, because such a compound necessarily meets the limitation of both compounds of embodiment (iv). As such, the use of the compounds of the recited molecular weight and viscosity, including in recited amounts, is an obvious modification suggested by Grun.
As to claim 8, Grun teaches the use of accelerator and inhibitor (para. 0143).
As to claim 9, while not exemplified, Grun teaches that additional fillers may include hydraulic fillers such as cement, burnt lime, water glass, etc. (para. 0052), and as such, the addition of such binders is an obvious modification suggested by Grun.
As to claim 10, while not exemplified, Grun teaches further fillers, including sand, an aggregate (para. 0053), and as such, is an obvious modification suggested by Grun.
As to claim 11, Grun teaches using the resin component in conjunction with a hardener component, containing peroxide, which is a curing agent for the radically curable unsaturated compound (para. 0143).
As to claim 18, the discussion of Grun with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference. The examples of Grun, as discussed therein, teach the resin having greater than 10 wt % of a bifunctional dimethacrylate diluent butanedioldimethacrylate. Grun teaches numerous alternative diluents, including in the recited amounts, including hexanediol dimethacrylate, which meets the recited molecular weight and low viscosity (para. 0055), and as such, the use of diluents in the recited molecular weight is an obvious substitution suggested by Grun.
As to claim 23, Grun teaches the use of additional fillers of larger particle size, including quartz sand (para. 0052). While not exemplified, Grun teaches that such filler may be silanized, which is optional, thus contemplating not silane modified.
As to claim 24, Grun teaches that thixotropic agents as optional, and provides that such optional component may be silica or pyrogenic (fumed) silica, and thus Grun contemplates compositions not having fumed silica.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0083563 (“Grun”) as evidenced by WO 2018/071920 A1 (“Johnston”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2015/0232719 (“Pfeil”).
As to claim 25, Grun teaches the use of additional fillers of larger particle size, including quartz sand (para. 0052). While not exemplified, Grun teaches that such filler may be silanized, which is optional, thus contemplating not silane modified.
Grun teaches various additives, including castor oil (para. 0050), which is a non-reactive diluent, which is a type of rheological agent. In addition, it is known from Pfeil, para. 0122, that the recited additives are alternative thixotropic (rheological) agents to pyrogenic silicic acid (fumed silica). As such, given that Pfeil teaches such compounds as alternative thixotropic agents, the use of such materials is an obvious substitution as a rheological agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, while Grun does not explicitly discuss the amount of filler having a grain diameter of 4 micrometers or smaller, given the range of d50 particle size distribution, such a percentage is clearly within the teaching of Grun. Further, the amount of inorganic filler is within the broad teachings of Grun.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764