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 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 30-31, 35, and 38) in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 . Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 30-31, 35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Desai (US 10,947,428, US Patent #12 from IDS dated 1/4/2024) . Regarding Claims 1-3, Desai teaches a composition that contains an epoxy-functionalized polyester (Column 3 Lines 40-42) which can be formed from a polyester (Column 3 Line 67 to Column 4 Line 9), an epoxy containing compound (Column 3 Lines 40-42 and Column 3 Lines 48-53) and wherein the epoxy-adduct can include triols, tetraols , and higher functional polyols (Column 3 Lines 63-64) and anhydrides such as those derived from phthalic anhydride (Column 4 Lines 35-43). Desai also teaches that the composition can contain elastomeric particles (Column 7 Lines 18-20) as well as a catalyst (Column 7 Lines 9-11). Because Desai teaches that the polyester is a polyol, it would logically follow that the polyester is terminated with hydroxyl groups and it would therefore be obvious to use polyester polyols with hydroxyl group termination. Further, as Desai teaches that triols and higher functional polyols can be used as noted above, it would logically follow that the polyester would have an average hydroxyl functionality of greater than 1. Because Desai teaches the use of higher order polyols, one of ordinary skill in the art would note that these compounds can be used and would be motivated to use such higher order polyols in order to increase crosslinking density in the resulting cured composition. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used polyols containing three or more hydroxyl groups to obtain a composition with greater crosslinking density with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding Claim 5, Desai teaches that polyesters may be derived from caprolactone (Column 3 Line 67 to Column 4 Line 2). Regarding Claims 8-9 and 12-13, Desai teaches the use of ring-fused anhydride such as those derived from phthalic anhydride (Column 4 Lines 35-49) which meet the requirements of structure I of the instant claims as well as the requirement of claim 9. Further, Desai teaches the use of hexahydrophthalic anhydride in Example 1 (Column 18 Line 61 to Column 19 Line 9), meeting the requirements of claim 12. Finally, as hexahydrophthalic anhydride has a molecular weight of 154, it meets the requirements of claim 13. Regarding Claim 14, Desai teaches that the molar ratio of epoxide containing compound:hydroxyl containing compound:anhydride is from 1:0.5:0.8 to 6:0.5:1 (Column 4 Lines 50-55), which overlaps with the range of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that alterations to these ratios would lead to differing amounts of unreacted functional groups present in the epoxy-functionalized compound and would be motivated to alter this ratio to afford the desired level of each functional group available to react during curing. As a result, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected any ratio of the three functional groups in order to obtain the desired amount of unreacted functionality in the composition to allow for the desired curing reactions. Regarding Claim 16, Desai teaches the use of epoxide containing compounds such as Bisphenol A and Bisphenol F (Column 3 Lines 48-53) which have an epoxide functionality of 2, meeting the requirements of the instant claim. Regarding Claim 19, Desai is silent on the epoxide equivalent weight and the molecular weight of the epoxy-adduct. However, given the broad range of molecular weight of the instant claim (800 to 100,000 g/mol) and the epoxide equivalent weight (150 to 1500 g/eq) , the rang s e cannot be considered to be critical absent the showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02.D.II. Regarding Claim 30, Desai teaches that accelerators (catalysts) can be used in amounts of 0 to 10% by weight of the composition (Column 7 Lines 9-11). Desai also teaches that the epoxy-functionalized polymer is used in amounts of 3 to 50% by weight of the composition (Column 3 Lines 43-45) and further that elastomeric particles can be used in amounts of 0.1 to 10% by weight (Column 8 Lines 3-6) in 2K formulations and up to 75% by weight of 1K formulations (Column 17 Lines 39-43). These ranges overlap with the ranges of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that alterations of these amounts would change the physical properties of the cured product and would naturally adjust their incorporation levels in order to obtain the desired properties such as toughness and flexibility. As such, it would have been obvious to have selected any amount that afforded the desired properties of the final material and it would further have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Regarding Claims 31 and 35, Desai teaches that fillers can account for 0.5 to 25% by weight of the composition (Column 6 Lines 49-51) and further that the composition can contain a second epoxy compound (Abstract). While optional, Desai also teaches the use of additives such as colorants, (Column 6 Lines 60-62) and thixotropes such as silica , wax, and clay (Column 6 Lines 55-57) . Regarding Claim 38, Desai teaches compositions that contain substantially similar components to those of the instant claims. It would logically follow that the compositions as taught by Desai would mee the sag requirements of the instant claims. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.II. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1283 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /A.J.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1765 /JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765