DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ reply dated 12/3/25 has been received. The Office apologizes for the delay in issuing this subsequent office action. Please note that the application has been reassigned and is now being examined by Margaret Moore
For reasons of record the amendment has overcome the prior art and 112(b)
rejections. As such an updated search was performed and the following new grounds of rejection is being made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 to 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventors regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the molecular weight is referenced as weight average but “(Mn)”
implies number average. Clarity is required. For prior art purposes the Examiner is interpreting this as weight average, consistent with the remarks filed 12/3/25.
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.
Claims 1 to 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama et al. 2017/0306184.
Nakayama et al. teach a release additive for organopolysiloxane release sheets. See the description of the acrylic silicone graft (co)polymer in paragraph 45
through paragraph 62. Of particular importance applicants’ attention is directed to paragraph 128. This prepares a copolymer of the silicone acrylate (6) in paragraph 126 and methyl methacrylate. The silicone acrylate results in the claimed units “a” and the methyl methacrylate results in the claimed unit “c” unit. Note that “b” can be 0. The Mw of this polymer is 2,000 which falls within the claimed range. As such the acrylic silicone graft copolymer in paragraph 128 meets the silicone acrylate polymer in claim 1.
As far as the claimed “liquid composition” that comprises this polymer, attention is directed to Example 9 (paragraph 142) which prepares an organopolysiloxane com-position in the manner of Example 1 (paragraph 133-134).
Example 1 prepares a composition of an organopolysiloxane, a silicone acrylate, an SiH siloxane and a catalyst. Example 9 uses the silicone acrylate of Synthesis Example 9 such that this anticipates the composition of claim 1.
For claim 2, note that the silicone acrylate polymer in Nakayama et al. is structurally the same as that found in claim 1 such that the viscosity (which is directly dependent on the structure) would have been expected to be within same claimed range.
For claim 3, given the molecular weights of methyl methacrylate and the siloxane of formula (6), it follows that a copolymer having a Mw of 2,000 will necessarily have a degree of polymerization within the claimed range.
For claim 4, note that the corresponding R1 in methyl methacrylate is methyl and the corresponding R2 is methyl.
For claim 5 the graft copolymer in Synthesis Example 9 meets both the require-ments (i) and (ii).
For claim 6, note that the carrier vehicle does not have any specific definition or limitation such that any liquid would appear to meet this requirement. As such both the vinyl siloxane (present with the platinum catalyst) and the SiH siloxane in Example 9 meet this requirement.
For claim 17, the composition in Nakayama et al. is a curable composition, a coating composition and a surface treating composition.
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
8/18/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights