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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29, line 1: “16and” should read “16 and”. Presently, there is no space between “16” and “and”.
Claim 29, lines 1 and 2: Claim 29 refers to claim 16 twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29 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 29 recites “the component A as defined in claim 16” and “the component B as defined in claim 16”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that claim 16 is not drawn to “component A” or “component B” but rather to a “two-component adhesive composition”.
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.
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.
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jialanella et al. (US 2020/0002587 A1, “Jialanella”) in view of Guichard et al. (WO 2018/219729 A1, “Guichard”).
With respect to claims 16 and 18-21, Jialanella discloses a two-component adhesive composition comprising an A-side and a B-side, where the A-side comprises a first acrylate-capped polyurethane, a second acrylate capped polyurethane, a core-shell graft copolymer, and a reducing agent, while the B-side comprises an oxidizing agent ([0008]). Given that Jialanella discloses a core-shell graft copolymer identical to that presently claimed, it would necessarily inherently function as an impact modifier.
However, Jialanella does not disclose that the A-side comprises an itaconate monomer as presently claimed.
Guichard discloses a curable adhesive composition (page 1, lines 6-7) comprising at least one reactive comonomer a) that is an itaconate (page 2, lines 10-12; page 3, lines 23-24, 29) and at least one (meth)acrylate-functionalized compound b) that is a urethane (meth)acrylate (page 2, lines 10-11, 20; page 10, lines 3-4, 10). The itaconates include dimethyl itaconate, diethyl itaconate, di-n-butyl itaconate, di-isobutyl itaconate, dicyclohexyl itaconate, bis(hexafluoroisopropyl) itaconate, diphenyl itaconate, dibenzyl itaconate, ethyl isobornyl itaconate, ethyl cyclohexyl itaconate, and combinations thereof (page 9, lines 12-15), which are identical to those of claim 20 and would inherently read on the R1 and R2 groups of claims 18-19. The itaconate monomer is present in an amount of 1-99% by weight (page 13, lines 16-17), which overlaps the presently claimed range. The reactive monomers produce a composition that exhibits faster curing and improved physical properties (page 1, line 32 - page 2, line 9).
Jialanella and Guichard are analogous inventions in the field of adhesive compositions made from urethane (meth)acrylates.
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 adhesive composition of Jialanella to contain an itaconate as taught by Guichard in order to provide an adhesive composition that exhibits faster curing and improved physical properties (Guichard, page 1, lines 33-39).
With respect to claims 17 and 22, Jialanella discloses the molecular weight of the urethane acrylate is not particularly limited and can be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art for a particular application ([0017]). Jialanella further discloses the molecular weight should be high enough that the urethane block soft segments impart suitable elasticity to the adhesive, but low enough that the acrylate polymer is not so viscous that it is either difficult to process or too viscous to combine to obtain a mixture of suitable proportions and/or viscosity ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a urethane acrylate with a molecular weight, including the number average molecular weight as claimed, to produce a composition with viscosity, including a viscosity as claimed, in order to provide a composition having suitable elasticity, that is processable, and that is mixable.
With respect to claim 23, Jialanella discloses the acrylate-capped polyurethanes can be made from tri-isocyanates which are capped with an isocyanate capping group such as hydroxyalkyl acrylates ([0014-0015]). Therefore, the acrylate-capped polyurethanes would have three (meth)acrylate groups.
With respect to claim 24, Jialanella discloses that each arylate-capped polyurethane is present in an amount of 5-25 wt% ([0019]), which overlaps the presently claimed range.
With respect to claim 25, Jialanella discloses the acrylate-capped polyurethanes can be made from diisocyanates which are capped with an isocyanate capping group such as hydroxyalkyl acrylates ([0012], [0014-0015]). Therefore, the acrylate-capped polyurethane would have two (meth)acrylate groups. Further, Jialanella discloses the first acrylate-capped polyurethane has a glass transition temperature (Tg) greater than or equal to 20°C while the second acrylate-capped polyurethane has a Tg of less than or equal to -20°C ([0013)] (i.e., the first acrylate-capped polyurethane is different from the second acrylate-capped polyurethane).
With respect to claim 26, Jialanella discloses the core-shell graft copolymer has a core made from butadiene and isoprene monomers ([0021]).
With respect to claim 27, Jialanella discloses the core-shell graft copolymer has a shell made from (meth)acrylate monomers ([0022]).
With respect to claim 28, Jialanella discloses a ratio of the A-side to the B-side of, for instance, 4:1 ([0079]).
With respect to claim 29, Jialanella discloses that all the components of the A-side are combined in a single composition, and that all the components of the B-side are combined in a single composition, and then the compositions are combined ([0056], [0079]) (i.e., a ready-for-use kit where the components A and B are packaged in two separate compartments).
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