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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “A Water-Borne Adhesive Modeled after the Sandcastle Glue of P. californica” to Shao et al. (Cited on IDS).
As to claim 1, 3-4, 8, and 11, Shao discloses a process for increasing the surface wetting of a biomimetic adhesive comprising single copolymer prepared from monomeric components by copolymerizaing dopamine methacrylamide (catechol units), methacrylamide, and monoacryloxyethyl phosphate (Figure 3), wherein the copolymer is derived from 90 mol% of MAEP.
As to claims 12-14, Shao discloses applying the adhesive to substrates as a paint or primer (Conclusion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over being unpatentable over WO-2009/094060 to Stewart at al.
As to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-21, and 23-26, firstly the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the claimed invention (See MPEP 2111.03 III). Stewart discloses an adhesive in solution comprising the following copolymerized polymer wherein covalent attachments are present in the backbone and further after curing (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
318
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The copolymer would be capable of increasing surface wetting because it is the same polymer as currently claimed. The content of phosphate is calculated as follows based on the above formula: the copolymer contains 90% of phosphate oligomer that contains anywhere from 10 to 90% by weight of phosphate moieties. Accordingly, the content of phosphate moieties within the copolymerized adhesive ranges from 9% to 81%. Stewart discloses the polyanion is a polymerization product of ethylene glycol methacrylate phosphate andacyrylamide wherein the phosphate groups amount to 45 to 90 mol% (Pg. 15, II. 2-11). Stewart discloses wherein the polycation is a polymer backbone of acrylamide and methacrylate residues wherein the tertiary monomer moieties derived from acrylamide range from 15 to 30 mol% (Pg. 13. LI. 6-21). The content of phosphate groups overlaps the claimed range of 8 to 50%. The content of DMA and MMA overlap the claimed range. At the time of filing it would have been obvious to decrease the content of phosphate moieties within the claimed values in order to provide cohesive strength and to maintain the desired pH in underwater applications as taught in Stewart (Pg. 3, 1-10, figure 1). The presence of the other polymers does not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics, i.e. as an adhesive.
As to claims 12-14, Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior artstructure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and /n re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Stewart teaches the copolymer in adhesive compositions that can be used to bond metals, dry bonding, and surface coatings (Abstract).
As to claim 16, Stewart discloses mixing monmoacryloxyethyl phosphate, dopamine methacrylamide or methyl methacrylate (Pg. 14, II. 19), and acrylamide in a solvent (MeOH), adding a free radical polymerization, quenching, and removing said solvent to prepare the copolymer (Pg. 22, II.1-8).
As to claims 18-19 and 21, Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and /n re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Stewart teaches the copolymer in adhesive compositions that can be used to bond metals, dry bonding, and surface coatings (Abstract).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Developing new synthetic biomimetic nanocomposite adhesives: Synthesis and evaluation of bond strength and solubilization” to Basiri et al.
As to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 23-26, firstly the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the claimed invention (See MPEP 2111.03 III). Basiri discloses a complex adhesive synthesized by mixing aminated gelatin with a poly (DMA-co-MOEP) copolymer comprising the copolymerization of 2-(methacryloloxy) ethyl phosphate and dopamine methacrylamide in ratios of MOEP to DMA of 11:1, 7:1, and 3:1 (See Abstract).
As to claims 12-14, Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior artstructure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and /n re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Basiri teaches the copolymer in adhesive compositions that can be used as bone adhesives (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Stewart cannot render obvious the claimed inventions because the claims are directed to adhesives consisting essentially of a single polymer. However, the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps " and those do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention. The claimed invention is directed to a method for increasing surface wettability of a polymer adhesive. The adhesive disclosed in Stewart is a copolymer prepared the same single polymer as claimed. Stewart is also directed to adhesives. Therefore, the presence of the additional polymers in Stewart do not appear to affect the basic adhesive properties desired. The claimed invention is directed to an adhesive. The adhesive disclosed in Stewart is a copolymer prepared the same single polymer as claimed. Stewart is also directed to adhesives. Therefore, the presence of the additional polymers in Stewart do not appear to affect the basic adhesive properties desired. The applicant should show an unobvious difference between the two adhesives to show that the additional polymers in Stewart affect the basic and novel characteristics desired.
***The same response could be applied to Basiri because of the addition of the gelatin component to the adhesive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights