Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/039,984

TWO-PART ADHESIVE PRODUCT FOR ADHESIVELY BONDING FOAMED SUBSTRATES

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
SCHALLER, CYNTHIA L
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BASF Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 431 resolved
+5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
460
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 431 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Response to Amendment This office action is in response to the RCE, Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed February 9, 2026 wherein claims 19, 24 and 28 were amended. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 have been canceled. Claims 19-20 and 23-36 are pending and considered on the merits below. In view of the claim amendments, the previous Section 112 rejections are withdrawn as moot. However, see the new Section 112 rejection of claim 30 below. 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. Claim 30 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. Regarding claim 30, at line 3, "the substrates" lack antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103, as obvious over the teachings of TOA GOSEI CHEM IND, JPS5763371A (hereafter Toa). Regarding claim 30, the preamble states: "An apparatus for applying the two-part adhesive product according to claim 19." Claim 30 is understood to be directed to a spraying device having structure for performing the function of simultaneously applying two compositions in the form of a spray to substrates being adhesively bonded. The particular material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. MPEP 2115. Thus, the particular composition now recited in claim 19, which is the material being worked upon by the apparatus, does not limit the recited apparatus. Also, the substrates being adhesively bonded do not further limit the apparatus claim. Toa is directed to a two-part adhesive product comprising a first composition and a second composition (page 1, para [0001] describing a two-component adhesive; see also Toa claim 1 located at the beginning of the body of the text at page 549 that describes one component as being obtained by an emulsion-polymerizing monomer mixture and the other component being an aqueous solution of a polyvalent metal salt). Toa is also directed to an adhesive application method using a spray gun with jet nozzles (page 6, line 310-330). Specifically, Toa teaches application of an adhesive composition made up of an acrylic aqueous emulsion (first composition) and a polyvalent metal salt aqueous solution (second composition) by spraying the compositions separately from a spray gun having two or more nozzles (jet nozzles), the two compositions being brought into contact with each other in the air or on the adherend (page 6, lines 310-330). Thus Toa is understood to inherently disclose or render obvious the spraying device "for simultaneously applying" first and second compositions recited in claim 30. Regarding claim 31, the Toa disclosure of spraying separately from two or more nozzles (page 6, lines 310-330) is understood to inherently teach the first nozzle being connected to a reservoir containing the first composition and the second nozzle being connected to a reservoir containing the second composition. As to the nozzles, being coaxial or substantially coaxial, the Toa disclosure of bringing the solutions in contact with each other in the air (page 6, lines 310-330) is understood to inherently disclose or render obvious the "substantially" coaxial arrangement recited in claim 31. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 19-20, 23-29 and 32-36 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to either show or reasonably suggest the two-part adhesive product recited in claims 19-20 and 23-29, the methods of using the two-part adhesive product according to claim 19 recited in claims 32-35, or the adhesively bonded product recited in claim 36. Regarding independent claim 19, Neither Toa nor BASF, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest all of the particular compositional components in the particular content ranges now recited in amended claim 19. Specifically, Toa in view of BASF does not teach or suggest the amended paragraph (iii) that requires "5 to 25 wt.%, based on the sum of monomers of styrene" in combination with the monomers and content ranges now recited in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iv) of claim 19. The other art of record does not provide this deficiency. Response to Arguments Applicant has provided no arguments directed to claims 30 and 31. Please see the rejection of these claims set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L SCHALLER whose telephone number is (408)918-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4:30. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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. /CYNTHIA L SCHALLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600890
SOLVENTLESS ADHESIVE COMPOSITIONS AND LAMINATE MATERIALS PREPARED THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594753
WEAR RESISTANT SHEET FOR BUILDING PANELS AND METHODS TO PRODUCE SUCH WEAR RESISTANT SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583212
Functional And Recyclable Materials With Electron Beam Crosslinking For Various Packaging Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570083
LAMINATING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565018
MANUFACTURING SYSTEM TO FORM A HONEYCOMB CORE AND A METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+23.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 431 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month