DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on July 29, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-17 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have limited the inorganic filler to 40-250 phr of aluminum hydroxide or magnesium hydroxide, which was not previously required by all claims.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is proposed below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weberg (US 2003/0104743), as evidenced by WO 2024/004918. For convenience, the machine translation of WO ‘918 will be cited below.
Weberg discloses a thermoset molding composition comprising the following:
540 parts MMA, which meets applicants’ (D1);
32.4 parts ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, which meets applicants’ (A2) when n112 and n113 are 0 and R114 is an alkylene group including 2 carbon atoms;
3.2 parts of Lupersol 11 and 0.5 parts VAZO 67, where both of which meet applicants’ (B);
8.4 parts Zelec MO;
3.0 parts black pigment dispersion;
4.5 parts zinc stearate;
1950 parts ATH (aluminum trihydroxide), which meets applicants’ (E); and
465 K120ND.
This total amount of components in Example 7 is 3007 parts, the total amount of components other than applicants’ (B) and (E) is 1053 parts, where the amount of ATH based on 100 parts by weight of a total of components other than the component (B) and (E) is 1950/1053 = 185 phr.
Weberg anticipates instant claims 1, 4, 8 and 16-17.
As to claim 2, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate has a viscosity of 2-5 mPa.s, as evidenced by which is the same as 0.002 to 0.005 Pa.s.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komori (US 6,403,690), as evidenced by WO 2024/004918. For convenience, the machine translation of WO ‘918 will be cited below.
Komori exemplifies the following (Ex. 16):
173 g compound [8];
362 g phenol novolak epoxy resin;
g triphenylphosphine;
103 g methacrylic acid, which meets applicants’ (D1) when R501 is H and R502 is H;
344 g styrene;
140 g tetramethylolmethane trimethacrylate, which meets applicants’ (A3) when n130 is 3, Z120 is a substituted trivalent aliphatic hydrocarbon group including 6 carbon atoms, and n121 is 0;
0.5 g hydroquinone;
0.6 g triphenylphosphine;
14 g Percumyl H80, which meets applicants’ (B);
1830 g Al(OH)3, which meets applicants’ (E); and
185 g phosphate ester, which meets applicants’ (F).
The aluminum hydroxide is present in an amount of about 140 parts based on 100 parts of the components other than the aluminum hydroxide and peroxide (1830/1309.2 x 100), and the phosphate ester is present in an amount of about 16 parts based on 100 parts of the components other than the aluminum hydroxide, peroxide and phosphate (16/1124 x 100).
Komori anticipates instant claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 16-17.
As to claim 2, tetramethylolmethane trimethacrylate is also known as pentaerythritol trimethacrylate, and has a viscosity of about 600-1000 mPa.s, as evidenced by WO ‘918, which is the same as about 0.60-0.1 Pa.s.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi (US 2014/0187714).
Horiguchi teaches a sealant composition comprising the following:
(a) a compound having two or more (meth)acryloyl groups, specifically listed to include hexanediol diacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, diethylene glycol dimethacrylate, polypropylene glycol diacrylate, dipropylene glycol diacrylate, 1,12-dodecanediol dimethacrylate, etc., teaching that the commercial products of a (meth)acrylic compound include functional monomers of SR series, all of which meet applicants’ formula (A2);
(b) a bismaleimide;
(c) a nitroxide compound (p. 1, [0008]-[0019]);
a filler, specifically listed to include aluminum hydroxide (p. 6, [0055]), which is present in an amount of 10-80 wt% based on the total amount of composition; and
a thermal radical initiator (p. 6, [0059]).
Horiguchi exemplifies the filler in an amount of about 121 parts based on 100 parts by mass of the total components other than the filler and the radical thermal initiator.
Horiguchi is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 4 and 16-17.
As to claim 2, hexanediol diacrylate has a viscosity of 0.01 Pas, as evidenced by the instant specification [0188].
As to claim 8, Horiguchi teaches that the composition can include monofunctional compounds having a (meth)acryloyl group, which are specifically listed to include isobutyl acrylate, t-butyl acrylate, etc., both of which meet applicants’ formula (D1).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weberg (US 2003/0104743), as applied above to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16-17, and further in view of WO 2019-235465. However, for convenience, the English language equivalent of WO ‘465, US 2020/0157257, will be cited below.
Weberg anticipates instant claism 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16-17, as described above and applied herein as such, as Weberg teaches transfer molding or injection molding of a composition comprising methacrylic acid, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, thermal radical initiators, and ATH (aluminum trihydroxide).
Weberg teaches that the molded compound charge is introduced into a cylinder connected to mold cavities, where a screw can be employed to introduce the material into the transfer cylinder, where a plunger then forces the molding compound into the mold cavities.
Weberg does not teach or suggest the pressure used for the cavity, as claimed.
WO '465 teaches liquid transfer molding and liquid injection molding, teaching a step of supplying the thermosetting composition into a plunger (supplying step) and filling the supplied thermosetting composition into a molding part of a mold having a molding part (cavity) by the plunger (filling step), and thermosetting the filled thermosetting composition in the molding part (curing step), and extruding the thermosetting resin, which is cured (releasing step) (p. 10, [0234]). WO '465 does not teach the gauge pressure or the specific amount of oxygen amount in the cavity as claimed; however, WO '465 does teach that is preferred to vent the air in the cavity or to depressurize the cavity to enable the pressure in the cavity to be reduced. This allows the air to escape and the vacuum in the cavity allows the thermosetting composition to be completely filled by leaving the cavity free of air (p. 12, [0200]).
Gauge pressure is the difference between the absolute pressure and the atmospheric pressure. If it is negative, then the pressure is lower than the surrounding atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure is about 101 kPa; therefore, at -101 kPa, a perfect vacuum is created.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have pulled a vacuum on the cavity of Weberg to minimize the amount of air or oxygen present in the cavity, as WO ‘465 teaches that this allows for cavity to be completely filled. A perfect vacuum has a gauge pressure of -101 kPa; therefore, creating a vacuum with a gauge pressure as close to a perfect vacuum as possible is prima facie obvious, and excluding as much air as possible, for example O X cavity volume/22.4 mol. WO '465 is prima facie obvious over instant claim 10.
As to claim 9, WO ‘465 teaches that a viscosity of the composition as 21 Pas, which is suitable for use in liquid transfer or liquid injection molding.
As to claim 11, WO '465 teaches the temperature of the cavity or molding part is 135°C (p 15, [0358] and [0369]). Weberg teaches that transfer molding is carried out by the steps of Process Embodiment 3 or 4, which disclose the temperature of the mold to be 100-145°C (p. 10, [0142]).
As to claim 12, WO '465 teaches the temperature of the flow path is 25°C or 15°C, depending on the method used (i.e. LTM or LIM) (p. 15, [0356] and [0367]).
As to claim 13, WO '465 teaches that the flow path has a gate system for blocking the flow of the thermosetting composition and the transfer of heat (p. 2, [0043]).
As to claim 14, WO '465 teaches that the filling is performed by opening a gate of the gate system, and in the thermosetting, pressure retention is performed and after the pressure retention, the gate of the gate system is closed to complete thermosetting.
As to claim 15, WO '465 teaches the filling time as 5 seconds and the holding time is 15 seconds for LTM and LIM, suggesting the amount of time for filling and thermosetting as 20 seconds, which is 0.3 seconds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant invention have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0199267 teaches a formulation for a 3D printing system comprising an acrylate monomer, borax decahydrate, aluminum hydroxide and a combination of a co-initiator, a thermal initiator, and a UV initiator; however, the claimed invention does not allow for the inclusion of inorganic fillers outside of the claimed aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide, where US ‘267 requires the inclusion of borax decahydrate.
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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights