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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 4, line 6 and line 11 each recite “thermosetting resin composition”, which should be “melamine-based thermosetting composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 4 recites “the modifiers”, which should be “the one or more modifiers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 13 recites “Caprolactam”, which should be “caprolactam”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 1 and line 2 each recite “thermosetting resin composition”, which should be “melamine-based thermosetting composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “thermosetting resin composition”, which should be “melamine-based thermosetting composition. 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the melamine-based resin" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinkoetz et al. (US 2020/0095453 A1 cited in IDS) in view of White et al. (3,827,995).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9, Weinkoetz et al. disclose a liquid composition (melamine-based resin composition) comprising etherified melamine formaldeyde resin and solvent (see paragraphs 0128-0129). There is no disclosure of external modifiers in the liquid composition. That is, external modifier amount is 0 wt% (free from external modifier).
Weinkoetz et al. do not disclose internal modifier as presently claimed.
White et al. disclose a thermosetting liquid resin composition comprising a blend of about 25 to about 55 wt% of a melamine-formaldehyde copolymer (melamine-based resin) and about 45 to about 75 wt% of urea-formaldehyde copolymer (urea or internal modifier) (see col. 1, lines 16-24). The blend has good stability (see col. 3, lines 44-45).
In light of motivation for using about 45 to about 75 wt% of urea-formaldehyde copolymer (urea) disclosed by White et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use about 45 to about 75 wt% of urea-formaldehyde copolymer (urea) in the liquid composition of Weinkoetz et al. in order to provide good stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that the liquid composition of Weinholtz et al. in view of White et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the liquid composition is a melamine-based thermosetting resin composition.
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier et al. (4,183,832).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9, Meunier et al. disclose an aqueous solution (melamine-based resin composition) comprising an etherified melamine-formaldehyde resin (see Abstract and page 20, claim 33). There is no disclosure of external modifiers in the aqueous solution. That is, external modifier amount is 0 wt% (free from external modifier).
Further, a free formaldehyde content in the aqueous solution is less than 6% (see page 20, claim 34). The free formaldehyde emits vapors that irritate eyes and respiratory systems (see col. 7, lines 23-25). The content of free formaldehyde is adjusted by reacting it with urea, i.e. internal modifier (see Abstract).
Meunier et al. do not disclose amount of urea (internal modifier). However, Meunier et al. disclose the content of free formaldehyde is adjusted by reacting it with urea as noted above.
Therefore, as taught by Meunier et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use amount of urea including that presently claimed in order to adjust content of free formaldehyde and reduce its vapors that irritate eyes and respiratory systems, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that the aqueous solution (melamine-based resin composition) of Meunier et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the aqueous solution is a melamine-based thermosetting resin composition.
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heger (4,454,277) in view of Meunier et al. (4,183,832).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9, Heger discloses an aqueous solution (melamine-based resin composition) comprising a melamine-formaldehyde resin and urea (internal modifier) in amount of 1 to 10 wt% (see Abstract and col. 2, lines 21-27). There is no disclosure of external modifiers in the aqueous solution. That is, external modifier amount is 0 wt% (free from external modifier).
Heger does not disclose the melamine-formaldehyde resin comprises etherified melamine.
Meunier et al. disclose an etherified melamine-formaldehyde resin having prolonged shelf life and low free formaldehyde content (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using an etherified melamine-formaldehyde resin disclosed by Meunier et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an etherified melamine-formaldehyde resin of Meunier et al. as the melamine-formaldehyde resin in Heger in order to provide prolonged shelf life and low free formaldehyde content, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that the aqueous solution of Heger in view of Meunier et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the aqueous solution is a melamine-based thermosetting resin composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights