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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2020023696 to Frinault et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,223,547 to Harada et al.
As to claims 1 and 4, Frinault discloses a two-component polyurethane adhesive comprising an NCO-terminated prepolymer derived from 4,4-MDI that contains less than 2wt% of monomeric diisocyanate component (0073) and a second component that comprises a polyol and 0.5 to 10 wt% of a tertiary amine containing polyol (0075, Examples).
Frinault does not expressly disclose wherein the tertiary amine containing polyol comprises at least 3 tertiary amine groups.
Harada within the same field of endeavor pertaining to polyurethanes having improved adhesive properties (1:22, 25:26-39, Table 9) comprising a tertiary amine component represented by the following formula that has 3.3 to 13.5 tertiary amine groups (Table 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
68
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to substitute one known tertiary amine component (taught in Frinault) with another known tertiary amine component (taught in Harada) because they are taught as suitable alternatives in analogous condensation reactions and further the use of the tertiary amine polyols of Harada avoid common problems associated with conventional urethane catalysts including skin irritation, odor, and work environment problems (1:46-52).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-
2020023696 to Frinault et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0010182 will be used for citations) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,223,547 to Harada et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0017677 to Guo et al.
As to claims 2-3, Frinault discloses a two-component polyurethane adhesive comprising a NCO-terminated prepolymer derived from 4,4-MDI component that contains zero to less than 2 wt% of monomeric diisocyanate component (0073) and a second component that comprises a polyol and 0.5 to 10 wt% of a polyol that includes a tertiary amine (0075, Examples).
Frinault does not expressly disclose the addition of phosphate functional polyols.
Within the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses a two-component adhesive wherein the polyol component includes 5 to 20 weight % of a polyurethane polyol (0121) and 1.5 to 10 weight % of a phosphate ester polyol 0118.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the phosphate ester polyol and polyurethane polyol of Guo to the adhesive composition of Frinault to increase curing rates, provide improved pot life and enhance performance including increased bond strength (0171-0172).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763