DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on January 26, 2026. No claims have been amended. Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-20, 22 and 24-26 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 24 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.
In claim 1, applicants claim “greater than 97 wt% and less than 99.8 wt% of difunctional monomers consisting of diacrylate monomer and divinyl ether monomers”.
In claim 24, applicants claim the binder “comprises equal amounts” of the diacrylate and divinyl ether monomers; however, claim 1 limits the difunctional monomers to consisting of the two. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite. Amending to claim “…wherein the diacrylate monomers and the divinyl ether monomers are present in equal amounts” would be sufficient to overcome this rejection.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12-20, 22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehnle (US 6,773,474), as evidenced by WO 2019/106031 and King (K-Pure CXC-1612, King Industries, 2025, 2 pages).
Koehnle teaches a binder comprising the reaction product of components comprising polyfunctional acrylate, polyfunctional cationically polymerizable material and a ternary curative.
Koehnle exemplifies a binder comprising a reaction product of the following (Table 1, Size Resin No. 11):
29.4 parts ACR-1, trimethylolpropane triacrylate;
67.9 parts VE-1, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol divinyl ether;
3.0 parts CPI-1, triarylsulfonium hexafluoroantimonate, which meets applicants’ cationic based photoinitiator;
0.5 parts CTI-1, quaternary ammonium hexafluoroantimonate, Nacure XC 7231, now sold as K-Pure CXC 1612, a blocked ammonium antimony hexafluoride catalysts, which are inactive until they reach their respective de-blocking temperature of 70-80°C, as evidenced by WO ‘031 (p. 13, ll. 8-25) and is also known in the art as a super acid based catalyst, as evidenced by King (p. 1); and
1.0 parts FRPI-1, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-propanone.
Koehnle teaches hexanediol diacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate and triethylene glycol diacrylate as functional equivalents to the trimethylolpropane triacrylate (col. 6, l. 58 to col. 7, l. 4). 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate is well-known in the art.
Modifying Size Resin No. 11 to include hexanediol diacrylate in place of trimethylolpropane triacrylate is prima facie obvious.
Koehnle teaches that the ternary curative can be present in an amount of 0.01-5 wt%, preferably 0.1-3 wt% .
Modifying Size Resin No. 11 to include only 0.1-3 wt% ternary curative, instead of 4.4 wt% is prima facie obvious. This suggests the polyfunctional acrylate and the polyfunctional cationically polymerizable material as being present in an amount of 97-99.9 wt% (col. 12, ll. 29-35).
Choosing to modify Size Resin No. 11 with the above modifications is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-13.
As to claim 2, Koehnle teaches that monofunctional acrylate monomers can be present in order to adjust the viscosity of the binder or physical properties of the cured binder (col. 7, ll. 30-36). Koehnle also teaches that monofunctional vinyl ethers may be blended with the polyfunctional divinyl ethers (col. 9, ll. 4-5).
Claim 8 can be rejected, as radical based thermal initiator and cationic thermal initiators are claimed as alternatives; however, Koehnle does teach that the binder can further include thermal free-radical imitators, which can be any type known for use (col. 12, ll. 54-64).
As to claim 22, Koehnle exemplifies the use of a blocked ammonium antimony hexafluoride catalyst, as described above, and further teaches that the binder can include free radical thermal initiators and be of any type known for use (col. 12, ll. 53-64), where AIBN and benzoyl peroxides, for example, are well-known free radical thermal initiators. Choosing a combination of both is prima facie obvious.
As to claim 24, Koehnle discloses the polyfunctional acrylate in an amount of preferably about 4-50 wt% and the polyfunctional cationically polymerizable material in an amount of preferably 50-96 wt%, where the weight percentages are based on the total combined weight of polyfunctional acrylate and polyfunctional cationically polymerizable material (col. 7, ll. 58-67). A 50:50 ratio is clearly suggested by the teachings of Koehnle and is prima facie obvious.
As to claims 25-26, choosing a combination of 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate as the polyfunctional acrylate and 1,4-cyclohexyldimethanol divinyl ether as the polyfunctional cationically polymerizable material is prima facie obvious. As to the initiators, Koehnle exemplifies the use of the claimed blocked ammonium antimony hexafluoride catalyst and further teaches that the binder can include free radical thermal initiators and be of any type known for use (col. 12, ll. 53-64), where AIBN is a well-known free radical thermal initiator. Choosing a combination of the claimed components, as well as a 50:50 ratio of the diacrylate and divinyl ether, is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments have been addressed in the rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766