DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 26 November 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 57-75 as amended are pending, with claims 63-75 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 26 November 2025. In particular, claim 57 now requires a specific amount of component F. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 57, 59, 60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0162531 (“Ko”) as evidenced by US 2014/0349054 (“Wu”).
As to claims 57 and 59, Ko teaches a composition containing a nonaromatic epoxy compound (para. 0039). Ko teaches conductive particles in the range of 1 to 10 micrometers (para. 0081). Ko teaches the particles may be carbon particles are Au or Ag particles, which are pigments. Ko teaches these particles range from 1 to 10 micrometers in diameter (para. 0081). Ko teaches the use of a binder resin. While not exemplified, Ko teaches that the resin may be polyvinylbutyral (para. 0036), which is a nonaromatic thermoplastic as required by claims 57 and 59. Ko teaches the use of a quaternary ammonium catalyst, exemplified by CXC-1612 (para. 0119), which as evidenced by WU, para. 0037, is a cationic catalyst, thus catalytic curing agent. Ko further teaches the use of cure stabilizer (para. 0127, specifically example 7), in amounts relative to the epoxy resin calculated to be in the recited range.
Ko suggests and exemplifies the nonaromatic epoxy resin as the only epoxy resin.
Ko differs from the recited composition in that it does not exemplify the recited amounts of components B, C, and D. However, Ko suggests compositions up to 36 mass percent of the epoxy resin (para. 0063), an amount of binder (that may be nonaromatic thermoplastic) from 20 to 60 wt % (para. 0037), the conductive particles (pigment) from 10 to 50 wt % (para. 0083), and the catalyst from 1 to 10 wt % (para. 0074). These are calculated to provide amounts of each of these components in ranges substantially overlapping the recited ranges; given these ranges, the preparation of a composition.
Ko does not state that the agent is a coating agent for spraying or manual application; however, given that Ko teaches the same components, including in recited amounts, it is presumed that such a composition would be suitable for the recited use.
As to claim 60, while not exemplified, Ko teaches that various rubbers may be used in combination (para. 0036), and as such, the use of rubber is an obvious modification suggested by Ko.
As to claim 62, Ko does not discuss a volatilization percentage. However, Ko teaches compositions composed of curable resins and fillers, and as such, would expect to have a low volatilization percentage.
Claim(s) 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0162531 (“Ko”) as evidenced by US 2014/0349054 (“Wu”) as applied to claim 57, further as evidenced by US 6,265,782 (“Yamamoto”).
As to claim 58, Ko does not discuss a thixotropic agent, but teaches the use of inorganic filler such as aluminum hydroxide to adjust fluidity (para. 0085). It is known, as evidenced by Yamamoto, 13:10-15, that aluminum hydroxide is a thixotropic additive; as such, it would be an obvious modification suggested by Ko to incorporate a thixotropic additive such as aluminum hydroxide.
Claim(s) 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0162531 (“Ko”) as evidenced by US 2014/0349054 (“Wu”) as applied to claim 57, further in view of US 4,650,494 (“Kutsukake”).
As to claim 61, Ko does not discuss a DSC exothermic peak in the recited range. However, as discussed with respect to claim 57, Ko teaches the use of polyvinyl butyral as a binder resin. As shown by Kutsukake, polyvinyl butyral is useful as a binder and has a glass transition temperature from 60 to 110 degrees C (5:53-60), which would be expected to provide a DSC exothermic peak in a range substantially overlapping the recited range; as such, the use of PVB as a binder, including in the recited Tg, thus DSC exothermic peak range, is an obvious modification given the teaching of PVB by Ko.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ko does not suggest the recited composition because Ko discusses only up to 40 wt % of the epoxy resin; this is not persuasive because the recited amounts of claim 57 are consistent with epoxy resin being in that range.
Applicant argues agains the rejection of claim 62 on the grounds that inherency is not established. This is not persuasive because Ko teaches the same types of material forming the composition, which suggests the low amount of volatile components to provide the recited volatilization.
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 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