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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 21-39 in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 40 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/9/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-38 are objected to because of the following informalities: “A” must be added to the beginning of claim 21, and “The” at the start of every dependent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A” must be added to the beginning of claim 39.
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.
Claim 23 is 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. The phrase “one or more” must be added before “the alkyl cyanoacrylate monomer” to be consistent with claim 21.
Claims 26-27 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. Formula (I-1) is not present in claim 21.
Claim 28 is 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. Claim 28 claims monomer(s), but claim 21 only recites one poly(2-cyanoacrylate) monomer.
Claim 32 is 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. Claim 32 recites the limitation "the difunctional and polyfunctional (meth)acrylate component(s)" in claim 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21-33, 35, 36, 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (2014/0329959) in view of Tully et al. (2020/0102480).
Regarding claims 21-28 and 38: Barnes et al. teach a two-part curable composition comprising a Part B comprising 72 wt% of ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate (hereinafter ECA) [Examples; Table 24]; and a Part A comprising a (meth)acrylate component having at least two (meth)acrylate functions [Examples; Tables 15, 17, and 24].
Barnes et al. fail to teach a poly(2-cyanoacrylate).
However, Tully et al. teach that adding 5 wt% of a bis-cyanoacrylate of the claimed formulas [0048-0050] improves the heat resistance properties of a cured cyanoacrylate composition [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 5 wt% of the bis-cyanoacrylate of Tully et al. to part B of Barnes et al. to improve the heat resistance properties of the composition.
Regarding claim 29: Barnes et al. teach a thickener [Tables 15, 17 and 24].
Regarding claim 30: Barnes et al. teach greater than 80 wt% of (meth)acrylate components [Tables 15 and 24].
Regarding claims 31-33: Barnes et al. teach the claimed amount of difunctional Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (hereinafter TRIEGMA) and the claimed amount of polyfunctional (meth)acrylate [Tables, 15 and 24].
Regarding claim 35: Barnes et al. teach a claimed additive [Examples; Tables].
Regarding claim 36: Barnes et al. teach the claimed ratio [0017; Examples; Tables].
Regarding claim 39: Barnes et al. teach a syringe comprising the two-part composition [Claim 10].
Claim(s) 34 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (2014/0329959) and Tully et al. (2020/0102480) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Pejoan Jimenez et al. (2017/0260422).
Regarding claim 34: Barnes et al. fail to each a nucleophilic initiator.
However, such initiators for cyanoacrylates are known in the art. For example, Pejoan Jimenez teaches that caffeine (a nucleophilic initiator and weak base) is a known cyanoacrylate polymerization initiator [0127].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known cyanoacrylate initiator (caffeine) as taught by Pejoan Jimenez in place of the initiator of Barnes with the predictable result of forming a useful adhesive composition because both are known as useful cyanoacrylate initiators. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 37: Barnes et al. teach a two-part curable composition comprising a Part B comprising 72 wt% of ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate (hereinafter ECA) [Examples; Table 24]; and a Part A comprising a (meth)acrylate component having at least two (meth)acrylate functions [Examples; Tables 15, 17, and 24]. Barnes et al. teach the claimed amount of difunctional Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (hereinafter TRIEGMA) and the claimed amount of polyfunctional (meth)acrylate [Tables, 15 and 24]. Barnes et al. teach 9.40 wt% of thickener [Examples; Table 17]. Barnes et al. teach adding 5 wt% of fumed silica (thixotropic agent) [0027, 0109,0110] to their cyanoacrylate component. Barnes et al. teach 0.01 to 1 wt% of a peroxide initiator [Examples; Tables].
Barnes et al. fail to teach a poly(2-cyanoacrylate).
However, Tully et al. teach that adding 5 wt% of a bis-cyanoacrylate of the claimed formulas [0048-0050] improves the heat resistance properties of a cured cyanoacrylate composition [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 5 wt% of the bis-cyanoacrylate of Tully et al. to part B of Barnes et al. to improve the heat resistance properties of the composition.
Barnes et al. fail to each a nucleophilic initiator.
However, such initiators for cyanoacrylates are known in the art. For example, Pejoan Jimenez teaches that caffeine (a nucleophilic initiator and weak base) is a known cyanoacrylate polymerization initiator [0127].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known cyanoacrylate initiator (caffeine) as taught by Pejoan Jimenez in place of the initiator of Barnes with the predictable result of forming a useful adhesive composition because both are known as useful cyanoacrylate initiators. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights