DETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As a note of clarification, the Examiner is interpreting the reaction product in part A and part B as two distinct and different products. If applicants are of the position that the reaction products in part A and B can be the they are requested to state so on the record in their reply to this office action.
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. (2013/0255879) in view of Lee et al. (4,689,389).
This rejection is maintained from the previous office action.
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.
In addition to that above, and to directly address the newly added language “forming a partially reacted adhesive”, please note the following.
Claim 1 now requires that partial curing occur after an initial fast reaction, follow-ed by a slow reaction to form a thermoset. While the terms “fast” and “slow” are not specifically defined, the Examiner gives them the meaning that the initial “fast” reaction will occur first, followed by the second “slow” reaction.
To this point, see the teachings in paragraphs 123-125 which disclose the curing conditions for the composition of Bieber et al. Specifically paragraph 123 teaches that the adhesive can have an initial curing at room temperature followed by later curing at an elevated temperature. Paragraph 124 specifically refers to this as partial curing, which is the same as forming a partially reacted adhesive. (the latter being the language found in newly amended claim 1). Note that a desirable cohesive strength occurs after a “short” curing period (which would appear to correspond to a fast reaction) followed by subsequent curing.
In this manner the newly added language does not distinguish the instant claims from the prior art teaching found in the primary reference Bieber et al. This combination of references results in a two part composition that contains each of the claimed components and renders claim 1 is 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.
Response to Arguments
The above addresses parts of applicants’ arguments but the rest are addressed below.
Applicants state that Bieber teaches away from a “slow reaction” that includes a
partially reacted thermoplastic. In view of that noted in the rejection above the Examiner disagrees. Again note that “fast” and “slow” are subjective terms. While in the context of these claims they are not indefinite per se, they do not add anything to the claims that distinguish them from the obvious composition above.
Also reference to the tertiary amine as an accelerator does not take away from the fact that compositionally (since the claims are directed to a composition) the tertiary amine in Bieber et al. is the same as that claimed.
Finally note that arguments directed towards the presence or absence of tertiary amine do not address the closest prior art in which a tertiary amine is present. All of the working examples in Bieber et al. include such an amine.
Conclusion
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
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights