DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10DEC2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 10DEC2025 has been entered. No new matter has been entered. Applicant's arguments filed 10DEC2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding RAHIM, the Applicant argues that the reference discloses a catalyst that can decompose an organic peroxide, not a polyurethane reactive curing catalyst. The instant specification (par. [68]) describes the catalyst as
catalyst includes a catalyst or cure-inducing component to modify speed of the reaction when the two components are mixed. Some suitable catalysts are those conventionally used in polyurethane reactions and polyurethane curing.
The Applicant has not explained why “a catalyst that can decompose an organic peroxide” is not “a polyurethane reactive curing catalyst”. RAHIM teaches a polyurethane adhesive formed by reactive curing (RAHIM par. [0005]).
Regarding the linking component, it may be also a diluent. See the updated rejection below and RAHIM par. [0015].
Regarding JOSEPH, the motivation to combine comes straight from the refences themselves and clearly explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would add a low molecular weight diol to the polyurethane adhesive.
Indeed RAHIM’s modified adhesive has the same components and structure as the claimed invention and thus properties are presumed inherent unless persuasive evidence is shown to the contrary.
The rejection has been updated as teaching a similar concentration of short chain polyols.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHIM (US 20150099818) in view of JOSEPH (US 5959775)
Regarding claims 1,18-19, RAHIM teaches a tri-curable adhesive composition (title, Figs) including an integrated hybrid, two component adhesive, comprising:
a first component (e.g. Part B; wt% based on part B; see e.g. par. [0020]) comprising:
e.g. 10-30% a multifunctional polyol (par. [0018]), which anticipates the claimed range of 10 to 35 wt. %,
a photoinitiator (par. [0004,0016]),
a polyurethane reactive curing catalyst (a catalyst that can decompose the organic peroxide- e.g. an inorganic cobalt; par. [0018]),
Note that a (meth)acrylate monomer having a range including a 0 wt % means that the monomer is optional;
10-40% of a urethane acrylate oligomer (par. [0020]), which anticipates the claimed range of 10 to 50 wt.%; and
a second component (part A; wt% based on part A; see e.g. par. [0013]) comprising:
e.g. 30 wt. % to about 70 wt. % a polyisocyanate (par. [0011,0013]), which anticipates the claimed range of 20 to 75 wt. %,
a (meth)acrylate monomer (par. [0012-0013]), and
15-30% a urethane acrylate oligomer (par. [0020]; RAHIM claim 7), which anticipates the claimed range of 5 to 35 wt. %;
about 25-55 wt. % of a “linking component” or diluent is e.g. 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, (par. [0015]), which overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 40 wt. % in either the first component or the second component (par. [0019]);
wherein the total of all materials in the first component is 100 wt.% by weight of the first component and the total of all materials in the second component is 100 wt.% by weight of the second component (all parts of a whole add up to 100%);
wherein the adhesive in mixed form has both a UV cure mechanism (par. [0005]) and a reactive cure mechanism (par. [0005]).
Note that overlapping ranges establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range from the prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the selected range.
RAHIM does not teach a short chain polyol. JOSEPH discloses an adhesive comprising a urethane/acrylate interpenetrating polymer network including polyisocyanate and a polyol cured by heat and radiation (abstract). A urethane component is included with a low molecular weight diol (e.g. ethylene glycol or ethanediol), which provides the backbone rigidity to impart stiffness (C6/L14-43) in sufficient amounts (C5/L61-62), which may be e.g. less than 5% (C6/L26-29), which overlaps the claimed range of from 0.5 to 5 wt.%.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the adhesive of RAHIM with a short chain polyol in the claimed amounts of JOSEPH in order to provide rigidity to impart stiffness. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of adhesives. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Furthermore, cured reaction products of RAHIM’s modified adhesive are capable of maintaining adhesion to a membrane surface in a bend test and cured reaction products of the mixed adhesive are capable of maintaining adhesion to a membrane surface after 10 days of an immersion test.
RAHIM’s modified adhesive has the same structure and function. This includes the property of maintaining adhesion to a membrane surface. Since the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 2, RAHIM teaches the adhesive in mixed form is capable of curing to a surface tack free state by exposure to UV radiation (par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, RAHIM teaches the first component and the second component each independently further comprise additives (par. [0017] and RAHIM claim 10).
Regarding claim 20, RAHIM’s modified adhesive teaches the polyurethane reactive curing catalyst comprises an organotin catalyst (JOSEPH C7/L14-27).
Claim(s) 5-14,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRAY (US 4842736) in view of RAHIM (US 20150099818) and JOSEPH (US 5959775).
Regarding claims 5-14,21, BRAY teaches a spiral wound membrane (title, Figs.) or filter assembly (e.g. Figs. 1,7) comprising a plurality of membranes (Figs. 1,7 #48) wound around a central tube or core (Fig. 7 #18) and a polyurethane adhesive (e.g. Figs. 7-9 #51) coated/bonded on a surface and/or sealing polyester felt backing layer/scrim (support surface; Fig. 7 #48) to the membrane (Fig. 7 #46) adjacent a fold line (Fig. 7 #50) leaving the remainder of the membrane surface free of adhesive (C1/L52-C2/L8, C4/L28-31, C5/L32-54; C6/L9-11,19-22; Fig. 7).
BRAY does not teach the adhesive details. However, RAHIM and JOSEPH teach an adhesive composition as above (the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated by reference).
RAHIM teaches that the adhesive is a two-part urethane acrylate adhesive composition that has the ability to both actinic radiation cure in light-accessible areas and chemically cure in shadowed areas improving the results for a tack-free satisfactory adhesive (par. [0005]).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adhesive of BRAY with the adhesive of RAHIM and JOSEPH in order to improve the adhesive and thus the overall membrane/filter assembly. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of adhesives suitable for filter assemblies. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G). See also MPEP 2141.01(a).III.
BRAY’s modified device provides for an adhesive that has the same structure and function. This includes the property of maintaining adhesion to a membrane surface. Since the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01).
Note that the adhesive on the filter assembly would be a mixed cured adhesive product so as to effectuate a rigid seal (see also RAHIM par. [0004] and BRAY C6/L19-22).
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights