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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 7/31/2023. Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16-20, 25, 27, 31-33, 35-38, and 41 are currently pending. Claims 3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18-20, 25, 27, 35, 38, and 41 have been amended in a preliminary amendment. The cancelation of claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 21-24, 26, 28-30, 34, 39-40, and 42-43 in the preliminary amendment is acknowledged.
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, 6, 11, 13, 16-20, 25, 27, 31-33, 35-38, and 41 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the barrier layer decreasing the water vapor transmission rate of the storage container” in lines 2-3 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear with respect to what standard the transmission rate is “decreasing.” In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean any barrier which provides any amount of resistance to the transmission of vapor. Claims 3, 6, 11, 13, 16-20, 25, 27, 31-33, 35-38, and 41 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a material compatible with a 1,1-disbustited alkene composition” is indefinite because it is not clear what it means for a material to be “compatible” with the composition. Does “compatible” mean it reacts with the composition, does not react with the composition, or something else entirely? In order to further prosecution, the word “compatible” has been interpreted to mean any reacts, does not react, or reacts minimally.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “about 3 months or greater” is indefinite because the limitation recites a range within a range and the boundaries of the range are not clear. In order to further prosecution, the lower bound of the range has been interpreted to be 3 months. Claim 17 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “about 50% or less” is indefinite because the limitation recites a range within a range and the boundaries of the range are not clear. In order to further prosecution, the upper bound of the range has been interpreted to be 50%.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “about 10% or less” is indefinite because the limitation recites a range within a range and the boundaries of the range are not clear. In order to further prosecution, the upper bound of the range has been interpreted to be 10%.
Regarding claim 25, the limitation “about 5 parts per million or more” is indefinite because the limitation recites a range within a range and the boundaries of the range are not clear. In order to further prosecution, the lower bound of the range has been interpreted to be 5 parts per million.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16-17, 31-33, 37-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olah (US 5073674 A).
Regarding claim 1, Olah discloses a method comprising: providing a storage container (the stainless steel pressure reaction vessel, col. 3, line 24), the storage container comprising a barrier layer (the inner half of the thickness of the wall of the stainless steel vessel is interpreted to be the barrier layer, col. 3, line 24), the barrier layer decreasing the water vapor transmission rate of the storage container (vapor cannot be transmitted through stainless steel, col. 3, line 24); and filling the storage container with a 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition (col. 3, lines 24-26, note that isobutylene is a 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition).
Olah, further discloses:
Claim 6, the barrier layer (the inner half of the thickness of the wall of the stainless steel vessel in interpreted to be the barrier layer, col. 3, line 24) is formed from a material compatible with a 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition (stainless steel is highly resistant to reacting with isobutylene, hence it is interpreted to be compatible with a 1,1-disbustituted alkene composition), the material compatible with a 1,1-disbustituted alkene composition comprising metal (stainless steel is a metal).
Claim 11, the barrier layer is an inner layer (as noted above, the inner half of the thickness of the wall of the stainless steel vessel is interpreted to be the barrier layer, thus the barrier layer is an inner layer).
Claim 16, the 1,1-disubsituted alkene composition exhibits a shelf life of 3 months or greater when the storage container is maintained at a temperature of about 50 °C and a relative humidity of about 75% (from general knowledge, isobutylene is chemically stable at 50 °C and external humidity does not impact the stability of isobutylene inside a stainless steel container, hence the composition exhibits a shelf like of 3 months or greater when the container is maintained at 50 °C and a relative humidity of about 75%).
Claim 17, the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition substantially maintains, over the course of its shelf life, one or more of viscosity and reactivity (from general knowledge, since isobutylene does not chemically degrade at the storage conditions, it maintains its viscosity and reactivity).
Claim 31, a container comprising: a storage container (the stainless steel pressure reaction vessel, col. 3, line 24) comprising a barrier layer (the inner half of the thickness of the wall of the stainless steel vessel is interpreted to be the barrier layer, col. 3, line 24), the barrier layer decreasing the water vapor transmission rate of the storage container (vapor cannot be transmitted through stainless steel, col. 3, line 24); and a 1,1-disbustituted alkene composition stored in the storage container (col. 3, lines 24-26, note that isobutylene is a 1,1-disbusituted alkene composition).
Claim 32, the barrier layer (the inner half of the thickness of the wall of the stainless steel vessel is interpreted to be the barrier layer, col. 3, line 24) is formed form a material compatible with a 1,1-dissubstituted alkene composition (stainless steel is highly resistant to reacting with isobutylene, hence it is interpreted to be compatible with a 1,1-disbustituted alkene composition).
Claim 33, the material compatible with a 1,1-disbustituted alkene composition comprises metal (stainless steel is a metal).
Claim 37, the material comprises stainless steel (col. 3, line 24).
Claim 38, the storage container is formed entirely of the material (the container is made of stainless steel, hence it is formed entirely of stainless steel, col. 3, line 24).
Claim 41, the storage container is substantially opaque to ultraviolet radiation (from general knowledge, stainless steel is opaque to ultraviolet radiation).
Claims 1, 11, 20, 25, 27, 31-33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narang (US 6183593 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Narang discloses a method comprising: providing a storage container (the packaging, col. 12, lines 23-31), the storage container comprising a barrier layer (the inner half of the packaging, col. 12, lines 23-31), the barrier layer decreasing the water vapor transmission rate of the storage container (since polymer provides some barrier to the free flow of vapor, the barrier layer is interpreted to decrease the water vapor transmission rate); and filling the storage container with a 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition (note that α-cyanoacrylates are 1,1-disbustituted alkene compositions, col. 7, lines 11-17; col. 12, lines 23-31).
Narang further discloses:
Claim 11, the barrier layer is an inner layer (the barrier layer is interpreted to be the inner half of the packaging, col. 12, lines 23-31).
Claim 20, the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition further comprises one or more antioxidents and acids (col. 10, lines 42-51, note that hydroquinone, p-methoxyphenol and BHA are antioxidents; col. 11, lines 8-22).
Claim 25, the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition comprises 5 parts per million or more of the acid and less than 1% by weight of the acid (col. 11, lines 16-18).
Claim 27, the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition comprises one or more of methanesulfonic acid (MSA), mono methyl ether of hydroxyquinone (MeHQ), and dibutylhydroxytolouene (BHT) (col. 11, line 66 – col. 12, line 19).
Claim 31, a storage container (the packaging, col. 12, lines 23-31) comprising a barrier layer (the inner half of the packaging, col. 12, lines 23-31), the barrier layer decreasing the water vapor transmission rate of the storage container (since the polymer provides some barrier to the free flow of vapor, the barrier layer is interpreted to decrease the water vapor transmission rate) and a 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition stored in the storage container (note that α-cyanoacrylates are 1,1-disubstituted alkene compositions, col. 7, lines 11-17; col. 12, lines 23-31).
Claim 32, the barrier layer is formed form a material compatible with a 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition (since the shelf life can be enhanced and extended by the packaging, col.12 ,lines 23-31, the barrier layer is interpreted to be compatible with the composition).
Claim 33, the material compatible with the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition includes high density polyethylene (col. 13, line 66 – col. 14, line 4).
Claim 35, the material comprises high-density polyethylene (col. 13, line 66 – col. 14, line 4), the surface of the material being modified by a halogenation process (col. 12, lines 23-31).
Claim 36, the halogenation process comprises a fluorination process (col. 12, lines 23-31).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olah (US 5073674 A) in view of Malofsky (US 2013/0303719 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Olah discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Olah does not disclose that the alkene composition comprises dialkyl methylene malonate.
Malofsky teaches putting dialkyl methylene malonate in a stainless steel vessel (paras. 0273-0274, note that diethyl methylene malonate is a type of dialkyl methylene malonate). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Malofsky, would have recognized that since Malofsky teaches putting dialkyl methylene malonate in a stainless steel vessel, then dialkyl methylene malonate can also be filled into the stainless steel container of Olah.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have stored and filled the dialkyl methylene malonate of Malofsky in the stainless steel storage container of Olah. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to allow the container of Olah to be used in a wider range of applications, thereby reducing costs.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olah (US 5073674 A).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Olah discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Olah does not expressly disclose the relative humidity.
In this case, from general knowledge, it is known that isobutylene is stable at all humidities since it is non-hygroscopic and does not have any functional groups that would cause hydrolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have filled the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition, in this case isobutylene, at any relative humidity includes a relative humidity less than 10% since isobutylene is stable at any humidity.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olah (US 5073674 A) in view of Goudiakas (US 6120619 A).
Regarding claim 27, Olah discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Olah does not disclose that the 1,1-disubstituted alkene composition comprises methanesulfonic acid (MSA).
Goudiakas discloses a 1,1-disubsituted alkene composition (methanesulfonic acid, MSA, col. 1, lines 56-61) that is compatible with stainless steel (col. 1, lines 56-61). Since the composition of Goudiakias is compatible with stainless steel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the stainless steel container of Olah is capable of holding the composition of Goudiakas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have filled the container of Olah with the 1,1-disubstitued alkene composition that comprises methanesulfonic acid as taught by Goudiakas since the container of Olah is capable of holding the composition of Goudiakas since the composition is known to be compatible with stainless steel.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narang (US 6183593 B1) in view of Nonaka (WO 2021/117865 A1). Note that for convenience, citations to the written description of Nonaka refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 13, Narang discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Narang does not expressly disclose that the barrier layer is applied with phosphoric acid.
Nonaka discloses a container (the packaging container, pg. 2, fourth and third from bottom lines) made of polyethylene terephthalate (pg. 13, second paragraph) comprising a barrier layer (the barrier layer, pg. 12, last paragraph), wherein the barrier layer is applied with phosphoric acid (pg. 13, last full paragraph) in order reduce oxygen transmission (pg. 14, second full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the container of Narang by applying it with phosphoric acid as taught by Nonaka in order to reduce oxygen transmission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Thanh Truong can be reached at 571-272-4472. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
7/29/2025