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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 46, 52, and 58 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 46, lines 12-13, “the organic peroxide” should read “the organic peroxide free radical polymerization initiator”.
Claim 52, line 1, “the organic peroxide” should read “the organic peroxide free radical polymerization initiator”.
Claim 58, line 1, “the organic peroxide” should read “the organic peroxide free radical polymerization initiator”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 46, 48-50, 52-55, and 58-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bojkova et al. (US 2007/0142605 A1) in view of Kang et al. (GB 2123431 A).
Regarding Claims 46, 48-50, 52, Bojkova discloses the production of polythiols by reacting a mixture (i.e. composition) of a dithiol and a diene compound (Abstract), where the diene compound may include divinyl or diallyl (i.e. polyalkenyl) compounds (para 0083). The reaction mixture further comprises a radical initiator, such as azo or peroxide type free-radical initiators, or a combination of the two (para 0102). Example 1 uses an azo initiator in an amount of 0.1 wt.% (1.25/(1.25+888.53+311.47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the azo or peroxide type free-radical initiators in an amount of 0.1 wt.%.
Bojkova further discloses the reaction mixture may include a photoinitiator for reaction by irradiation with ultraviolet light (i.e. actinic radiation-activated free radical polymerization initiator) (paras 0208, 0210).
The azo free-radical initiator may be VAZO-67 (para 0102), which is the same azo initiator used in the present invention (present specification, Table 3), has a formula of 2,2’-azodi(2-methylbutyronitrile) as claimed, and would therefore have a 10-hour half-life decomposition temperature as claimed.
The peroxide type free-radical initiator may be an organic peroxide, such as t-butyl peroxide (para 0207).
Bojkova does not disclose the specific organic peroxide as claimed.
Kang discloses the production of polythioethers (Abstract), using an organic peroxide free radical initiator (page 3, lines 22-25). Kang discloses specific t-butyl peroxides suitable for this reaction include 1,1-di(t-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethyl-cyclohexane (page 3, lines 46-47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Bojkova to incorporate the teachings of Kang, and use 1,1-di(t-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethyl-cyclohexane as the organic peroxide free-radical initiator, since this would be a suitable organic peroxide for the reaction mixture.
Since 1,1-di(t-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethyl-cyclohexane is the same organic peroxide as claimed, it would necessarily have a 10-hour half-life decomposition temperature as claimed.
Regarding Claims 53-54, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 46 above. Bojkova further discloses the reaction mixture may comprise 0.01 to 5% by weight base catalyst such as 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (para 0111), which according to the present specification is a suitable reducing agent (para 348).
Regarding Claim 55, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 46 above. While Bojkova discloses the reaction mixture may comprise 0.01 to 5% by weight base catalyst such as 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (para 0111) (i.e. reducing agent), this is not required, and no other reducing agent is required. Therefore it would have been obvious to produce the composition comprising no reducing agent.
Regarding Claim 58, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 55 above, including use of 1,1-di(t-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethyl-cyclohexane as the organic peroxide free-radical initiator.
Regarding Claim 59, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 46 above. While there is no disclosure of storage stability, since the reaction mixture comprises all the materials of the present invention as claimed, it would necessarily have storage stability as claimed.
Regarding Claims 60-61, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 46 above. Bojkova further discloses a cured product of the reaction mixture (para 0278).
Regarding Claims 62 and 65, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 46 above. Bojkova further discloses the reaction mixture applied as a coating (i.e. sealant) on a polymerizate surface (para 0276).
Regrading Claim 63, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 62 above. Bojkova further discloses the reaction temperature may be from room temperature to 100 C (para 0103).
Regarding Claim 64, Bojkova in view of Kang discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 62 above. Bojkova further discloses the reaction can include irradiation with ultraviolet light (i.e. actinic radiation) (para 0208).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Bojkova of the actinic radiation-activated initiator
However, Bojkova discloses the reaction mixture may include a photoinitiator for reaction by irradiation with ultraviolet light (i.e. actinic radiation-activated free radical polymerization initiator) (paras 0208, 0210).
Applicant argues that Bojkova does not disclose the 10-hour half-life decomposition temperatures of the azo free radical polymerization initiator and organic peroxide free radical polymerization initiator as claimed.
However, Bojkova discloses the azo free-radical initiator may be VAZO-67 (para 0102), which is the same azo initiator used in the present invention (present specification, Table 3), has a formula of 2,2’-azodi(2-methylbutyronitrile) as claimed, and would therefore have a 10-hour half-life decomposition temperature as claimed. Bojkova in view of Kang also discloses use of 1,1-di(t-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethyl-cyclohexane, which is the same organic peroxide as claimed, and would therefore have a 10-hour half-life decomposition temperature as claimed.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights