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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed July 10, 2026 wherein claims 1-12 and 14-23 are currently pending.
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 10 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. Claims 11 and 12 depend on claim 10 and, therefore, are also rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the curable composition of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second monomer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou et al (2014, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 10, 41203, 1-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
110
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1, Zou teaches the following monomer:
(page 2).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (CN 113105599).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Zhou teaches the following monomer:
PNG
media_image2.png
69
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 3) wherein R7 and R8 are hydrogen atoms (page 4).
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumner et al (2004, Polymer, 45, 5199-5206) in view of Zhou et al (CN 113105599).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Sumner teaches the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
357
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 5202) reading on figure (I).
Sumner does not teach the claimed monomer wherein the variable “n” is 2 to 4.
The disclosure of Zhou is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is herein incorporated by reference. Sumner teaches the motivation for using the monomer to be because it has a wide curing window and self-catalyzing curing behavior and has short curing time (abstract). Sumner and Zhou are analogous in the art of monomers used in curable compositions. In light of the benefit above, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the monomer of Zhou in the composition of Sumner, thereby obtaining the present invention.
With regards to claims 4-5 and 21-23, Sumner teaches the above compound to be combined with other monomers and benzoyl peroxide (reading on an initiator) (page 5203) and to have a viscosity of below 1,000 cps (page 5204).
Sumner does not teach the claimed monomer wherein the variable “n” is 2 to 4.
The disclosure of Zhou is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is herein incorporated by reference. Sumner teaches the motivation for using the monomer to be because it has a wide curing window and self-catalyzing curing behavior and has short curing time (abstract). Sumner and Zhou are analogous in the art of monomers used in curable compositions. In light of the benefit above, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the monomer of Zhou in the composition of Sumner, thereby obtaining the present invention.
With regards to claim 7, Sumner teaches the amount of the phthalonitrile compound to be 20, 30, or 40% (page 5202).
With regards to claim 8, Sumner teaches the amount of the phthalonitrile compound to be 20% (page 5202).
With regards to claim 9, Sumner teaches the following compound to be added to the phthalonitrile compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
100
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 5203) reading on not containing a phthalonitrile group.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, Sumner teaches the following compound to be added to the phthalonitrile compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
100
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 5203) reading on an aromatic multifunctional vinyl monomer.
With regards to claim 12, Sumner teaches the amount of monomer to be 70% (page 5201).
With regards to claim 13, Sumner teaches the viscosity of the resin to be less than about 1000 cps (reading on less than 1000 mPa·s) (page 5204).
With regards to claim 14, Sumner teaches the phthalonitrile to be 20%, the amount of multifunctional monomer is 70% (page 5201) reading on 90% of polymerizable monomer.
With regards to claim 15, Sumner teaches the amount of carbon atoms to be 52 in a composition having 10 non carbon atoms (page 5203) reading on 83.9%.
With regards to claim 16, Sumner is silent on the use of the composition for a laminate. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the claimed tests are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claims 17 and 19, Sumner is silent on the composition’s thermal degradation temperature. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the thermal degradation temperature are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claims 18 and 20, Sumner teaches the composition to be polymerized with heat (page 5203) however does not teach the use of an imprint template or superstrate in order to impart a pattern to the polymerization. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to add an imprint template or superstrate in order to achieve a polymerization pattern or localize the polymerization to specific locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The art on record does not teach the specifically claimed compounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed July 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, and 14-23 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) with respect to Sumner et al (2004, 45, 5199-5206) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhou et al (2014, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 10, 41203, 1-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references also teach the compound Zou et al: Zou et al (2017, Polymer Composites, 1591-1599), Wang et al (10/10/2022, ACS Omega, 7, 37170-37179), Zou et al (2016, J. POlym. Res, 23: 2, 1-9), Jiang et al (2017, High Performance Polymers, Vol 29(9), 1016-1026), and Liu et al (CN 103664699).
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 JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights