DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 16 April 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 11-19 as amended are pending, with claims 16-19 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 16 April 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 16 April 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent issuing on US Pat. App. Ser. No. 18/129,386 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites a structure formula with “m” and “n” which appear to indicate number of repeating units; however, neither the specification and claims define m or n, and as such, the limitations of the structure are indeterminate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0343228 (“Liu”).
As to claims 1, 4, and 7, Liu teaches a latent catalyst (accelerator) (abstract). Liu teaches catalysts formed from an amine, specifically exemplified by 2,4,6-tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol, which is an amine according to claims 1 and 4 (para. 0077). Other recited aminophenols are taught by Liu as suitable for the invention (para. 0015).
Liu does not exemplify the use of the recited resins of claims 1 and 7. Liu teaches the use of polymer with carboxylic acid groups for making the catalyst latent, thus an encapsulation system including a functional polymer. Liu teaches the use of the use of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid for forming the polymer (para. 0019), and that other monomers, including styrene may be incorporated (para. 0019), and as such, acrylic polymers including styrene is contemplated as the encapsulant by Liu, and is thus an obvious modification suggested by Liu.
As to claim 8, as discussed with respect to claim 7, acrylic acid and methacrylic acid meet the structure of claim 8 where R2 is hydrogen and R1 is hydrogen or methyl.
As to claim 9, as discussed with respect to claim 7, acrylic/methacrylic acid polymers with styrene (a vinyl monomer) are contemplated by Liu, thus polymerization of acrylic and vinyl monomers with unsaturated monomers having carboxy groups (also acrylic) are suggested by Liu.
As to claim 13, while not exemplified with styrene acrylic, Liu teaches Catalyst 1 in which the DMP-30 and Primacor 5980i are mixed at a 2:1 amine:COOH equivalent ratio. Based on the structure and weight of 2,4,6-tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol and the carboxylic acid content of Primacor 5980i (Tables 1 and 2), it is calculated that the amine and encapsulant (polymer) are present in an approximately 1:2.5 ratio, and therefore ratio of amine to encapsulant as recited is an obvious modification given the examples of Liu.
More broadly, Liu teaches a preferable amount of the amine being 1 to 45 weight percent, based on the amount of tertiary amine and the carboxyl functional polymer (para. 0038), which suggests a preferred range of the ratio of amine to encapsulant of 1:1.2 to 1:99, which encompasses the recited range. Given the examples, ratio within the range is an obvious modification suggested by Liu.
As to claim 14, while Liu does not discuss lack of gelation at accelerated aging conditions, Liu teaches an curable epoxy system with the catalyst that can last months without appreciable change in viscosity; see Table 3. Given the similarity of the composition with that claimed, and the teaching of long storage stability, it is reasonable to expect that the epoxy resin composition meets the recited characteristic.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0343228 (“Liu”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 5,994,475 (“Roth”).
As to claim 11, Liu teaches the carboxyl functional polymer may have additional monomers, but does not discuss polybutadiene. Roth teaches similar curing agents formed from amines and carboxyl functional polymer, and that such polymers may also be formed from butadiene (2:60-65), and therefore butadiene polymers are contemplated by Liu in view of Roth. Note that applicant’s discussion of polybutadienes includes copolymers (see specification, para. 0034), and therefore functionalized polybutadiene as the encapsulating system is an obvious modification suggested by Liu in view of Roth.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0343228 (“Liu”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2013/0056153 (“Czaplicki”).
As to claim 15, Liu teaches using the catalyst (accelerator) in epoxy adhesive compositions (para. 0072), but does not discuss lap shear strength. Czaplicki teaches structural epoxy adhesives, including using a curing accelerator (catalyst) (para. 0024), teaching such epoxy adhesives can achieve lap shear typically greater than 10 MPa (1450 psi) (para. 0011). As such, it is well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain an epoxy adhesive with the latent accelerator having lap shear strength in the recited range.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-038314 A (“Maeda”).
A partial machine translation is enclosed.
As to claims 1 and 12, Maeda teaches an epoxy resin composition having a latent curing accelerator having a tertiary amine compound, including 1,8-diazabicyclo(5,4,0)undec-7-ene (para. 0034). While not exemplified, Maeda teaches the accelerator preferably includes a shell portion (encapsulating system) including nylon (a polyamide) (paras. 0046-0047), specifically condensates of diamines and diacids (para. 0052), which would be expected to be either carboxyl or amine functional, or both, at the ends thereof. As such, the use of recited amine compounds in a latent accelerator with functional polyamide is an obvious modification in the composition of Maeda.
As to claim 14, Maeda teaches incorporation into epoxy resin (para. 0010). While the recited aging time is not recited, Maeda teaches composition is stable at 40 degrees C (para. 0092). Given the teaching that the compositions can provide storage stability at such temperature, the provision of compositions having the recited stability are an obvious modification suggested by Maeda.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding Liu, while not exemplified, Liu suggests styrene in the carboxyl functional acrylic resin used as an encapsulating system.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights