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 claims 1-7 and 10-13 in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu (H. Gu, C. Xu, L.-T. Weng, B. Xu, “Solventless Polymerization: Spatial Migration of a Catalyst to Form Polymeric Thin Films in Microchannels”, J. Am. Chem. Soc ., 2003, 125, 31, 9256- 9257) . On page 9256 Gu discloses storing a catalyst powder and norbornene in separate vials, as well as a silicon wafer, in a closed chamber under reduced pressure. Gu discloses that poly(norbornene) is formed on the silicon wafer, and also discloses that a thin polymeric film forms on the remaining catalyst. The catalyst used by Gu is a Grubbs catalyst, such as bis(tricyclohexylphosphine)benzyldine ruthenium (IV) dichloride (see the separately attached Supporting Information), which is water-insoluble. The catalyst having a polymeric film formed thereupon therefore meets the limitations of the curing agent of claim 1, where the curing catalyst includes the water-insoluble catalyst powder, and the polymerized norbornene is the aliphatic cyclic polyolefin resin. The polymerized norbornene is a cycloolefin homopolymer, as recited in claim 7. Claims 1 and 7 are therefore anticipated by Gu. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 2, 4 -7, and 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 18/710,406 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1, 3, and 7 of the ‘406 application recite a curing agent comprising porous particles retaining an aluminum chelate compound and a coating containing a polyolefin resin on the surface of the porous particles, where the porous particles include a polyurea resin and the polyolefin resin can be an aliphatic cyclic (alicyclic) resin. Claim s 1 and 4-5 of the current application is therefore anticipated by claims 1, 3, and 7 of the ‘406 application for the case where the curing catalyst is porous polyurea particles bearing an aluminum chelating compound , noting that claims 4-5 of the current application only limit the claims when the curing catalyst is the water-insoluble catalyst powder. Claims 14-15 of the ‘406 application recites a curable composition comprising the curing agent and a cationically curable compound which can be an epoxy resin, meeting the limitations of claims 2 and 11-12 of the current application. Claims 4-5 of the ‘406 application are analogous to claims 6-7 of the current application. Claim 9 of the ‘406 application is analogous to claim 13 of the current application. Claim 10 of the ‘406 application recites a method of preparing the curing agent meeting the limitations of claim 10 of the current application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-13 would be allowed if the double patenting rejection were overcome . Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2 and 4-6 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form if the double patenting rejection were overcome. The Gu reference cited in the above rejection does not disclose or render obvious a method meeting the limitations of claim 10, since the aliphatic cyclic polyolefin resin (polynorbornene) film on the catalyst powder is formed by the sublimation of norbornene followed by a polymerization catalyzed by the catalyst powder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to form the polynorbornene-coated catalyst powder of Gu by the method of claim 10, since it is formed as a byproduct in the coating of a silicon wafer with polynorbornene; Gu is not focused on methods of forming the coated catalyst powder. Gu also does not disclose catalyst powder or curing agent of the type or properties recited in claims 2-5, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Gu to arrive at the subject matter recited in those claims since Gu is directed to the use of a specific Grubbs catalyst, and also does not provide any teaching that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to further include a curable resin. Gu does not indicate the glass transition temperature of the polynorbornene, and since polynorbornene generally has a high glass transition temperature it cannot be said to be an inherent propert y in Gu. Iwamoto (JP 2015-232119 A) , an English-language machine translation of which was attached to the restriction requirement mailed 12/16/25, discloses a capsule comprising a water-soluble hardener and/or hardening accelerator as a core agent inside a shell having an inner layer containing a water-soluble polymer and an outer layer containing a hydrophobic polymer. The level of solubility required to be “water-soluble” in Iwamoto and the level of solubility required for the “water-insoluble” catalyst powder in claims 1 and 10 overlap, and Iwamoto discloses that the hydrophobic polymer of the outer layer can be an ethylene/norbornene copolymer. However, this ethylene/norbornene copolymer is not disposed on the surface of the curing catalyst due to the presence of the intervening inner layer, and in paragraph 58 Iwamoto discloses that the capsules are made by first forming microcapsules comprising the curing agent encapsulated in the water-soluble polymer of the inner layer, rather than dispersing the curing catalyst and aliphatic cyclic polyolefin resin together in an organic solvent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to modify Iwamoto to remove the inner layer of the shell. Nishio (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0194454) discloses in paragraphs 14-28 and 136-143 a curing agent comprising porous particles formed of a polyurea resin and various aluminum chelating compounds. In paragraphs 94-95 Nishio indicates that the curing agent can be used to cure an epoxy resin. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to dispose an aliphatic cyclic polyolefin resin on the surface of the porous particles of Nishio. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2476 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT PREM SINGH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771