DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 11/18/25 has overcome the prior art rejection for reasons of record. As the result of an updated prior art search the following new ground of rejection is being made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Again the term “high molecular weight” is subjective and thus indefinite. The
term “high” does not have a specific or defined meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 to 7, 10 to 13, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieber et al. in view of Lee et al.
Bieber et al. teach a two part adhesive composition. This includes, in one part,
an epoxy resin and, in another part, a curing agent that can be an epoxy-thiol adduct (paragraphs 10 to 14).
The curing agent is disclosed in paragraphs 34 to 41. It is the reaction product of an epoxy and a thiol and, given the fact that “n” in formula (III) is preferably at least 2 and “i” can be from 1 to 6, it is clear that a thiol component having a minimum of two active hydrogen groups is reacted with the epoxy to make this product. This meets one of the two parts as found in claim 1.
As for the second of the two parts, please see teachings of the epoxy resin in paragraphs 15 to 24. Specifically paragraph 20 teaches that the epoxy resin can contain thioether groups. While this does not specifically teach the reaction between an epoxy and a thiol, such a reaction results in a thioether linkage.
Lee et al. teach the reaction product between an epoxy and a thiol having at least two polymerizable active hydrogen groups. See the bottom of column 2 through column 4, line 21, which also teaches the properties associated therewith. The epoxy adducts can be used in all technologies in which epoxy resins are used (column 3, line 55 to 70).
As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the epoxy adduct in Lee et al. as a thioether epoxy in Bieber et al. with the expectation of obtaining useful and predictable results. Motivation arises from the teachings in both Bieber et al. and Lee et al.
Finally, for the claimed tertiary amine, see paragraphs 62 and 63.
Regarding the language regarding the fast reaction and the slow reaction, differ-ing reaction rates would be expected in the composition of Bieber et al. in view of the fact that different curing agents are used (the thiol compound and the tertiary amine) which will necessarily result in different cure times.
Also see paragraph 124 which refers to a two-step heating/curing process that meets this requirement.
In this manner the combination of references teaches a two part composition that contains each of the claimed components and claim 1 is rendered obvious.
For claims 3 and 4, see paragraphs 65-74 which teaches the addition of a flexibi-lizing agent. Specifically paragraph 74 teaches preparing one from a OH terminated copolymer of butadiene and acrylonitrile. The agent is found in Table 2 and used in the working examples.
For claim 5 see paragraph 52 which teaches “curing agents and accelerators” as well as Table 2 which includes an accelerator/catalyst.
For claim 6 see paragraphs 113 to 117 which teach such fillers.
For claim 7, note that an odor reducing agent is known and common additive in compositions as found in Bieber et al., particularly ones containing sulfur compounds as they are known to have a disagreeable odor. In fact the desirability of an adhesive to have a pleasant or inoffensive smell would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art such that this claim would have been obvious.
For claims 10 and 11, no primer is found in the method steps in paragraph 126. Also note paragraph 136 which teaches applying the adhesive to only one side.
For claim 12 note that the flexibilizer noted supra meets this limitation, as do polymers in paragraph 65 and 91 to 98.
For claim 13, note that it is unclear what is intended by this claim but the reaction between the various components in Bieber et al. will result in a high molecular weight polymer. Furthermore any thermoplastic properties found in the claimed invention would likewise be found in the prior art since the compositions are comparable and thus would be expected to have comparable properties. Finally again note that Bieber et al. teach a two step curing process in which a first partially cured polymer is prepared.
For claim 15, see paragraph 116 which teaches fumed silica.
For claim 16, note that supra regarding the presence of a catalyst.
Conclusion
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 MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
2/11/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765