DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment of claim 35 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 10/24/2025. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 35, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraiwa et al (JPH0220581) in view of Hickey et al (US6,743,858) and evidenced by Washizuka (US 2005/0101483).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JPH0220581 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Hiraiwa teaches a composition comprising ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate and a butyl methacrylate polymer and additives (pages 3, 5-7). The butyl methacrylate polymer can be polybutylmethacrylate polymethylmethacrylate copolymer in an amount of 2-40 wt%. The butyl methacrylate polymer can be Dianall BR-112, which has a Mn 16,000-30,000 as evidenced by Washizuka [0132, 0175-0176]. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Hiraiwa does not teach a rubber toughening component.
However, Hickey discloses a similar composition and teaches the composition may also contain a rubber to impart impact resistance (9:35-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made include a rubber to impart impact resistance.
Claim 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werhahn et al (EP1369463) in view of Hickey et al (US6,743,858).
Werhahn teaches a composition comprising about 80-90 wt% of a cyanoacrylate, 1-15 wt% of a polybutylmethacrylate-polymethylmethacrylate copolymer with a molecular weight of 10,000-600,000, and 2-10 wt% of fumed silica [0006-0014, table]. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Werhahn does not teach the molecular weight is Mw or Mn. Because Mw is always greater than Mn, therefore either way it overlaps the claimed range.
Werhahn does not teach a rubber toughening component.
However, Hickey discloses a similar composition and teaches the composition may also contain a rubber to impart impact resistance (9:35-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made include a rubber to impart impact resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner is confused by the applicant’s arguments such as “the cyanoacrylate must be a monomeric 2-alkoxy” and “the polyalkyl(meth)acrylate must be present in an amount of 1-15 wt%”. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights