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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 16 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 September 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.
Claim 2 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.
With respect to claim 2, the claim provides the structure of the amine-initiated polyol being Structure (I), but fails to define what R1, R2, and R3 represent. Therefore, it is unclear what structures are encompassed by Structure (I) and thus claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
7. 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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US 2019/0127617 A1, “Bai”) in view of Wu et al. (WO 2018/140116 A1, “Wu”).
With respect to claims 1-4, Bai discloses a two-component solventless adhesive composition (Abstract, [0001], [0007]) comprising an isocyanate component ([0010]) and a polyol component ([0030]). The polyol component comprises 2-45 wt% polyester polyol ([0019]) and 5-45 wt% polyether polyol ([0022]). The polyester polyol is a polycondensate of a diol and a dicarboxylic acid, where the dicarboxylic acid includes aliphatic dicarboxylic acids ([0016-0018]), which would necessarily form an aliphatic polyester polyol. The polyether polyol includes polypropylene glycol ([0021]). The weight ratio of the isocyanate component to the polyol component is 1:1 to 5:1 ([0040]), which overlaps the presently claimed range of 100:100 (i.e., 1:1) to 100:80 (i.e., 1.25:1).
However, Bai does not disclose wherein the polyol component includes an amine-initiated polyol having the claimed structure and present in the claimed amount.
Wu teaches a two-component solventless polyurethane adhesive composition that includes an isocyanate component and an isocyanate-reactive component including an amine-initiated polyol (page 3, line 24-page 4, line 3). The amine-initiated polyol has the structure shown below, where R1, R2, and R3 are each independently a linear or branched alkyl group (page 7, line 23-page 8, line 2) and is present in an amount of 0.2-30 wt% (page 8, lines 19-23). The amine-initiated polyol provides an adhesive composition having a significantly faster reactivity profile (page 13, lines 3-5). The isocyanate-reactive component further includes additional polyols, such as polyester polyols and polyether polyols (page 7, lines 14-19). The mix ratio of the isocyanate component to the isocyanate-reactive component is 100:100 (1:1) to 100:80 (1.25:1) (page 10, lines 11-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
160
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Amine-initiated polyol structure
Bai and Wu are analogous inventions in the field of solventless two-component polyurethane adhesives made from an isocyanate component and a polyol component containing polyether polyols and polyester polyols.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyol component of Bai to contain 0.2-30 wt% of the amine-initiated polyol having the structure taught by Wu in order to provide a two-component solventless adhesive composition having a significantly faster reactivity profile (Wu, page 13, lines 3-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights