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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I invention (claim 17-28) in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant traverse examiner’s position based on JPH06-172733 disclosed technical feature. This is not found persuasive because it is a pure allegation and does not explain the claimed adhesive composition (technical feature) making a contribution over JP’733. In response to applicant’s arguments of both group I and II invention can be searched simultaneously, this is not persuasive either because the restriction is established on lack of unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/05/2025.
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 17-28 are 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 this case, claim 17 recites a broad recitation of “for producing pressed material molded bodies”, and also recites a narrower recitation of “in particular pressed material plates”, 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. Next, claim 17 recites “a chemically curable, aqueous two-component adhesive formulation …… comprising a first aqueous component A comprising at least one chemically curable reactive resin; and a second aqueous component B comprising at least one curing agent for the chemically curable reactive resin of component A”, wherein such open-end language “comprising” does not exclude presence of other component in such aqueous two-component adhesive formulation. But claim 17 also recites “wherein the aqueous two-component adhesive formulation consists of 20 wt. % to 80 wt. % of component A and 20 wt. % to 80 wt. % of component B”, such “consists of language exclude presence of other component in the aqueous two-component adhesive formulation, which is contradictory to its previously recited “comprising” limitation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitations. All claim 17’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
For examination on merit with broadest and reasonable interpretation, the claimed aqueous two-component adhesive formulation will be interpreted as “comprising”.
Claim 20 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 this case, claim 20 recites “the mixture of reactive resins functionalized with functional epoxy groups of component A are selected from a group consisting of functionalized acrylate resins, functionalized styrene acrylate resins, functionalized acrylic acid copolymers and functionalized (meth)acrylate copolymers, functionalized acrylate urethane copolymers and functionalized cationic polyesters”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain whether acylate resins, styrene acrylate resin, acrylic acid copolymers, (meth)acrylate copolymers and cationic polyesters being functionalized (only) by epoxy group or by any other functional group besides epoxy group, e.g. ether or ester group? Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitations of functionalized resin or (co)polymer.
Claim 21 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 this case, claim 21 recites “the mixture of curing agents having functional amine groups of component B are selected from a group consisting of functionalized acrylates, functionalized acrylate polymers, functionalized acrylate copolymers, polyamine adducts, functionalized acrylate urethane copolymers, functionalized styrene acrylate resins and cationic epoxy amine adducts”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain whether acylate resins, acrylate polymers, acrylate copolymers, acrylate urethane polymers, styrene acrylate resin being functionalized (only) by amine group or by any other functional group besides amine groups, e.g. ether or ester group? Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes of bounds such claimed functionalized resin or polymer. Next, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the exact meaning of the recited “polyamine adducts”, or “epoxy amine adducts” meaning, such as what material or functional material being adducted to polyamine or epoxy amine, therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 17-21 and 23, 25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kishi et al. (JPH06172733) in view of Pyun(WO2012/081842) (for applicant’s convenience, such foreign documents machine translation has been provided for citations).
Kishi et al teaches a two-component aqueous adhesive formation comprising
an epoxy-modified acrylic polymer aqueous emulsion and a curing agent, characterized in that the curing agent is a mixture of hexamethylenetetramine
(A), a thickener (B), a lower alcohol (C) and water (D) in an amount of 5 to 40 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the epoxy-modified aqueous acrylic emulsion (claim 1, para. [0004], [0005], [0009], [0011]-[0013], examples 1-9), wherein such epoxy modified acrylic aqueous emulsion and the aqueous curing agent are mixed together. Kishi et al further discloses the epoxy-modified acrylic aqueous emulsion is obtained by copolymerizing 3 to 30 parts by weight of an epoxy resin and 1 to 20 parts by weight of a monomer having a carboxyl group per 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the emulsion (claim 2, para [0005], [0012]-[0013]), and also expressly discloses the solid contents of epoxy-modified acrylic polymer emulsion having 50% by weight solids (para. [0012]), such teachings suggest an epoxy-modified acrylic emulsion having overlapping amount of reaction resin functionalized with functional epoxy group and overlapping amount of aqueous phase (e.g. less than 50% by weight) as that of instantly claimed. Kishi et al. also discloses the curing agent is a mixture of 10 to 50 parts by weight of hexamethylenetetramine (A), 1 to 10 parts by weight of a thickener (B), 1 to 10 parts by weight of a lower alcohol (C), and 40 to 80 parts by weight of water (D), such teachings suggest the curing agent having an overlapped amount of curing agent as that of instantly claimed.
As for the claimed “for producing pressed material molded bodies, in particular pressed material plates, by continuously or discontinuously pressing mixtures of the adhesive formulation and chip material and/or fiber material, or by pressing layerings of the adhesive formulation and chip material and/or fiber material”, such limitation does not structurally limit the instantly claimed adhesive formulation composition, rather just intended application for the instantly claimed composition.
As for the claimed epoxy-modified acrylic polymer having an epoxy equivalent of 200 g/mol to 1500 g/mol, Kishi et al. further teaches the epoxy-modified acrylic emulsion being obtained via using epoxy resin having epoxy equivalent of 180 to 270 (g/mol), therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect such epoxy resin modified acrylic polymer would have similar epoxy equivalent of 180 to 270 g/mol because such epoxy group with such epoxy equivalent being use to functionalize acrylic polymer.
Regarding claim 17, in arguendo about Kishi et al. doe not expressly teach the epoxy-modified acrylic polymer having an epoxy equivalent of 200 g/mol to 1500 g/mol.
Pyun teaches an adhesive composition comprising an acrylic polymer resin, an epoxy resin and an imidazole compound, wherein the acrylic polymer resin may be used alone or in combination with another polymer resin in the (meth) acrylate copolymer which preferably may contain an epoxy group. Pyun also teaches the acrylic polymer resin may have an epoxy equivalent of about 500 to 5000 g / eq (claims, page 6 the paragraph immediate under “Acrylic polymer resin”). Since Pyun teaches epoxy equivalent being 500 to 5000 g/eq, which means number of grams of epoxy resin required being 500 to 5000 gram for producing 1 mole of epoxy groups, i.e. 500 to 5000g/ mol.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt an acrylic polymer resin with epoxy equivalent being about 500 to 5000 g/mol as shown by Pyun to modify the epoxy-modified acrylic polymer because by doing so can provide a curing composition with excellent reliability when the adhesive composition being cured as suggested by Pyun ((claims, page 6 the paragraph immediate under “Acrylic polymer resin”).
Regarding claim 18 and 20-21, Kishi et al. already teaches such limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Kishi et al. in view of Pyun already teaches overlapping amount of reactive resin with overlapping epoxy equivalent as well as overlapping amount of curing agent containing same or substantially the same amine functional group as that of instantly claimed , therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that such overlapping content of epoxy modified acrylic resin with overlapping epoxy equivalent to overlapping amount of curing agent with same or substantially the same functional amine group (i.e. same or substantially the same hydrogen equivalent) leading to an overlapping ratio of “an epoxy equivalent weight of the aqueous phase of the reactive resin functionalized with functional epoxy groups or of the mixture of reactive resins functionalized with functional epoxy groups of component A to an amine hydrogen active equivalent weight of the aqueous phase of the curing agent having functional amine groups or of the mixture of curing agents having functional amine groups of component B is 3:1 to 1:2” as that of instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Kishi et al. discloses the epoxy-modified acrylic polymer emulsion having pH of 7 and curing agent of hexamethylenetetramine having a pH value about 8.4 (see https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/hexamethylenetetramine#section=Experimental-Properties).
Regarding claim 25, Pyun also teaches fillers can be included in the adhesive composition wherein the content of adhesive can be from 15 to 40 wt.% based on the total weight of the adhesive composition (claim 6-7, page 8 three paragraphs immediate under “Filler”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such filler together as shown by Pyun to modify the epoxy modified acrylic resin aqueous emulsion or the curing agent because adopting such well-known content of filler into such resin emulsion or the curing agent for modifying a well-known two component adhesive composition for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). It is noted that Pyun disclosed filler content range when added to the epoxy modified acrylic resin emulsion or added to the curing agent leading to an overlapping amount of filler content as that of instantly claimed thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same filler content as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a desired two component adhesive formulation.
Regarding claim 28, Kishi et al. further teaches the curing agent aqueous formation comprising a thickener and the blending ratio of the thickener to 100 parts by weight of the curing agent is suitably in the range of 1 to 10 parts by weight (claim 3, para. [0009]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kishi et al. (JPH06172733) in view of Pyun(WO2012/081842) as applied above, and further in view of Abell(US2018/0345726).
Kishi et al. already teaches the curing agent containing a lower alcohol in an amount (claim 2, example 1-9) overlapping with that of instantly claimed alcohol content. Kishi et al. also teaches examples of the lower alcohol include water-soluble alcohols such as methyl alcohol (i.e. methanol), ethyl alcohol (i.e. ethanol), and isopropyl alcohol (i.e. propanol) (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 22, Kishi et al. in view of Pyun does not expressly teach the alcohol being polyvalent alcohol.
Abell teaches useful alcohols include methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and butylene glycol can be used for forming adhesive (para. [0056]), wherein ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and butylene glycol are polyvalent alcohol.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute methanol, ethanol or propanol with their functional equivalent of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and butylene glycol because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose, i.e. substituting such alcohol for help obtaining desired adhesive composition is prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 06).
Claim 24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kishi et al. (JPH06172733) in view of Pyun(WO2012/081842) as applied above, and further in view of Snyder (WO2021/096556) (For applicant’s convenience, equivalent US2022/0363963 has been used for citations).
Regarding claim 24, 26-27, Kishi et al in view of Pyun does not expressly teach the component A or B comprises the claimed content of wax, wetting agent or defoamer.
Synder teaches an adhesive composition, wherein such adhesive composition may further include a variety of additives understood in the art, including, but not limited to, a surfactant component (i.e. a wetting agent), a filler component, a wax, a filler, an impact modifier, a solvent, or combinations thereof. Other components that may be present in the composition include minor amounts of antioxidants, inhibitors, defoamers, dispersing aids, heat stabilizers, UV stabilizers, wherein one or more of such compounds are individually present in the composition in an amount less than about 5 weight% (para. [0062]). Synder disclosed wax is not being an ionized, therefore, it is a neutral wax.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known content of well-known surfactant, a wax or defoamers as shown by Synder to modify the epoxy-resin modified acrylic polymer emulsion or curing agent as shown by Kishi et al in view of Pyun because adopting such well-known content of wax, surfactant and defoamer into an epoxy-resin modified acrylic polymer emulsion or a curing agent for modifying a well-known two component adhesive composition for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732