DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11 are supported by the specification. The new claims 18-21 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 7/20/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “a curing accelerator” should be removed from the list. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: a proper Markush format is “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pejoan Jimenez et al (US 2017/0260422).
Claim 1, 18-21: Pejoan Jimenez teaches a component A comprising 65-80wt% of a mixture of compound formula I and compound formula III, 0.08-0.2 wt% of dibenzo-18-crown-6 [0113-0120]. Formula III usually represents 0-50 wt% based on the total weight of compound formula I and compound formula III [0103, table 2]. Compound formula I can be ethoxyethyl-2-cyanoacrylate, Compound formula III can be butyl cyanoacrylate [0224].
Claim 2-3, 9: because Pejoan Jimenez teaches the claimed composition, it is therefore inherent that the composition exhibit claimed property since such a property is evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used, see MPEP 2112.01. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claim 1, 5, 18-21: Pejoan Jimenez teaches a composition comprising 4 parts of component A and 1 part of component B [0160]. Component A comprises a mixture of compound formula I and compound formula III, 0.08-0.2 wt% of dibenzo-18-crown-6 [0113-0120]. Formula III usually represents 0-50 wt% based on the total weight of compound formula I and compound formula III [0103, table 2]. Compound formula I can be ethoxyethyl-2-cyanoacrylate, Compound formula III can be butyl cyanoacrylate [0224]. Component B comprises 0.03-0.2 wt% of accelerating agent, which results in 0.07-0.2wt% in the whole composition. Component B comprises initiator and pigment [0124].
Claim 2-3, 9: because Pejoan Jimenez teaches the claimed composition, it is therefore inherent that the composition exhibit claimed property since such a property is evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used, see MPEP 2112.01. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakishita et al (JPH09118839) in view of Pejoan Jimenez et al (US 2017/0260422).
Claim 1, 4-5, 18-21: Kakishita teaches a composition comprising 20wt% of an alkyl 2-cyanoacrylate, 60 wt% of ethoxyethyl-2-cyanoacrylate and 20 wt% of KAYARAD HX-620 and a peroxide (example 2, 0023). The alkyl 2-cyanoacrylate can be isopropyl-2-cyanoacrylate [0010]. Kakishita further teaches the composition comprising polymerization accelerator such as crown ethers [0021].
Kakishita does not teach the amount of crown ethers.
However, Pejoan Jimenez discloses a cyanoacrylate composition and teaches a crown ether accelerator such as dibenzo-18-crown-6 can be included in an amount of 700-2000 ppm [0100-0102, 0145]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include dibenzo-18-crown-6 in an amount like claimed because it is recognized in the art being a suitable amount for cyanoacrylate compositions.
Claim 2-3, 9-11: Kakishita is silent with respect to the claimed properties of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Kakishita and Mcardle have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, the data have been fully considered, however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that 1) the content of cyanoacrylate of Kakishita is based on the whole composition, while the claimed contents is based on the total weight of cyanoacrylate; 2) the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. The inventive data only contains 55-90 parts of ether bond-containing cyanoacrylate as compared to the claimed 50-99 parts, and the inventive data only contains a specific compound compared to the claimed formula. The above statement also applies to other ingredients including (meth)acrylate, initiator, curing accelerator.
Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights