DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 2, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 6-10 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.
Regarding claim 3: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “wherein the molar ratio of difunctional (meth)acrylate (Ai) relative to the bireactive amine (Aii) is less than 1”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 0.5 to 0.9” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the multifunctional (meth)acrylate (B) comprises 2 or more”, and the claim also recites “preferably 3 or more, most preferably 4” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the bireactive amine (Aii) is an aliphatic primary amine”, and the claim also recites “preferably a C2-C8 aliphatic primary amine, an amine alcohol or piperazine” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 defines both the difunctional (meth)acrylate and the two functional polyol as “preferably” a limitation, which is indefinite since it is not clear if the claim is further limiting if the person having ordinary skill in the art does not “prefer” to follow these limitations. In other words, are these limitations required or suggestions?
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the polymeric amino (meth)acrylate comprises 2 or more”, and the claim also recites “preferably 3 or more, most preferably 4” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein the polymeric amino (meth)acrylate has an amine content of at least 1 meq/g”, and the claim also recites “more preferably at least 1.2 meq/g” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the polymeric amino (meth)acrylate has a double bond content of at least 1 meq/g”, and the claim also recites “more preferably at least 1.5 meq/g, even more preferably 2 meq/g” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illsley et al. (WO 2017/095786) in view of Deruyttere et al. (US 2012/0308734).
Regarding claims 1 and 7: Illsley et al. teaches a polymeric aminoacrylate (title) suitable for use in energy curable compositions/radiation curable compositions (abstract) made by the reaction product of a bireactive amine and a trifunctional acrylate which is then reacted with a different diacrylate/multifunctional (meth)acrylate (para. 34).
Illsley et al. does not disclose that the first reaction of the bireactive amine is with a difunctional acrylate. However, Deruyttere et al. teaches a similar reaction of an amine with a mixture of acrylates (abstract), wherein one of the acrylates is a difunctional acrylate such as 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (para. 21). Illsley et al. and Deruyttere et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same filed of endeavor, namely polymeric aminoacrylates. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate of Deruyttere et al. in the product of Illsley et al. and would have been motivated to do so to control the viscosity of the prepolymer and the hardness of the product.
Regarding claim 2: Illsley et al. teaches greater than 75% of the acrylates of component (B) to the total of the oligomers/copolymer (para. 34), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3: Illsley et al. teaches 2 times a stoichiometric excess of bireactive amine to the trifunctional acrylate (para. 34), which converts to a ratio of 0.5 in the order claimed.
Regarding claim 4: Illsley et al. teaches the acrylate of component (B) is poly(alkylene oxide) diacrylate (para. 34), which comprises 2 acrylate groups.
Regarding claim 5: Illsley et al. teaches the amine has two secondary amine groups (para. 36).
Regarding claim 6: Illsley et al. teaches piperazine (para. 36).
Regarding claim 8: Illsley et al. teaches a product with at least two acrylate groups (para. 47).
Regarding claim 9: Illsley et al. teaches an amine value of 75 mg KOH/g (para. 53), which is equivalent to 1.336 meq/g amine content.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illsley et al. (WO 2017/095786) in view of Deruyttere et al. (US 2012/0308734) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Poelmans et al. (EP 3 401 370).
Regarding claim 10: Illsley et al. teaches the basic claimed polymeric amino (meth)acrylate as set forth above. Not disclosed is the double bond content. However, Poelmans et al. teaches a similar compound with a double bond content of 1-3 meq/g (para. 79). Illsley et al. and Poelmans et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymeric amino acrylates. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the double bond content of Poelmans et al. in the compound of Illsley et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Poelmans et al. teaches the double bond concentration controls the yellowing and hardness of the coating (para. 8).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights