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 .
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.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pat. 4,740,330) as evidenced by Schrader (US Pat. 4,394,496, incorporated by reference in US Pat. 4,740,330).
Considering Claims 1 and 5: Wang et al. teaches an allyl ether compound prepared by reacting an aromatic hydroxyl compound with an allyl halide (1:50-2:4), where the aromatic hydroxyl compound has the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
174
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where X” is a hydroxyl group, and Z is hydrogen or a C1-6 alkyl group (2:8-3:7). Wang et al. teaches that the compounds of Schrader et al. can be used as the aromatic hydroxyl compound (3:36-39).
Schrader et al. teaches the compounds as most preferably being a 2,4’,4”-trihydroxy(triphenylmethane)/Z is hydrogen (4:44-50). Schrader et al. teaches that the phenyl groups can be substituted adjacent to the hydroxyl group (10:13-36; 10:53-11:6; Table 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have tried the claimed ortho substitution, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wang et al. suggests, it is one of three identified options for the substitution. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP § 2143.
Considering Claim 2: Wang et al. teaches the less than 0.03% phenolic groups following the reaction (Table I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pat. 4,740,330) as evidenced by Schrader (US Pat. 4,394,496, incorporated by reference in US Pat. 4,740,330) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kokado et al. (Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2015, 3, 8504).
Considering Claim 3: Hefner Jr. et al. teaches the compound of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hefner Jr. et al. does not teach the reactive groups as being methacryloyloxy groups. However, Kokado et al. teaches a tetraphenol with methacryloyloxy groups as a polymerizable comonomer (Scheme 1). Hefner Jr. et al. and Kokado et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely tetraphenolic crosslinking agents. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the allyl group of Hefner Jr. et al. with the methacryloyloxy group of Kokado et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, they are functionally equivalent photopolymerizable groups.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pat. 4,740,330) as evidenced by Schrader (US Pat. 4,394,496, incorporated by reference in US Pat. 4,740,330) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hefner Jr. et al. (US 2011/0009560).
Considering Claim 6: Wang et al. teaches the compound of claim 5 as shown above.
Wang et al. does not teach curing the composition. However, Hefner Jr. et al. teaches a thermosetting/curable resin comprising a polyallyl ether compound (¶0118). Wang et al. and Hefner Jr. et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyallyl ether compounds. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a cured composition from the compound of Wang et al., as in Hefner et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, it is a known use for polyallyl compounds.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 24, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application 18/007,742 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights