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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 17-27 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 28-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 17-27 are currently under examination on the merits.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has two paragraphs and over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Masumoto (JP 2018035266, of record, ‘266 hereafter).
Regarding claim 17-21 and 23-24, ‘266 discloses an epoxy resin modifier containing a block copolymer ([0004]-[0007]), wherein the block copolymer can be an A-B-A triblock copolymer ([0061]) having an A block that has a structural unit (a-1) represented by the general formula (1) as presently claim, which can be one of the acrylate monomers as listed in the present claim 19 ([0005]-[0009], [0015]-[0025]), and a structural unit (a-2) derived from a (meth)acrylate having a chain alkyl group including branched chain alkyl group such as 2-ethylehexyl (meth)acrylate ([0027], [0040]-[0041], [0050]); and a B block that has a structural unit (b) derived from at least one (meth)acrylate having a chain alkyl group or a (meth)acrylate having a cyclic alkyl group ([0005], [0052]-[0059]); wherein an amount of the structural unit (a-1) represented by the general formula (1) is in a preferred range of 60 to 100 mass % with respect to total mass of the A block ([0026]), thus the amount of the structural unit (a-2) derived from the (meth)acrylate having the chain alkyl group could be in a range of 0 to 40 mass% with respect to total mass of the A block ([0026]), which overlap instantly claimed ranges as in present claim 17, and the amount of structural unit (b) in the B block can be preferably 80 to 100 mass% ([0059]) satisfying present claim 23. The amount of A block and B block in the entire copolymer each can be in the ranges of 30 mass% to 70 mass% ([0070]), satisfying present claims 21 and 24.
Regarding claim 22, ‘266 discloses that the structural unit (b) in the B block can be derived from a (meth)acrylate having a chain alkyl group such as butyl (meth)acrylate and ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate but does not specifically set forth that the chain alkyl group has 11 to 20 carbon atoms; however, the meth)acrylate having chain alkyl group having 11 to 20 carbon atoms are homologues of the (meth)acrylate as disclosed by ‘266. It is well established that homologues are prima facie structurally obvious even in the absence of an explicit teaching to modify. “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). (See MPEP 2144.09 II).
Regarding claims 25-27, ‘266 also discloses that the epoxy resin modifier is polymerized by a living radical polymerization, which has a preferred weight average molecular weight being 10,000 to 100,000, molecular weight distribution preferably being 1.6 or less ([0068]-[0073]-[0075]).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nomura et al (US 2016/0002460, ‘460 hereafter). ‘460 discloses an epoxy resin composition comprising an epoxy compound; a block copolymer; and a curing agent; wherein the block copolymer (B) is composed of a polymer block (a) comprising a (meth) acrylic polymer and a polymer block (b) comprising an acrylic polymer that is different from the polymer block (a) ([0009]-[0010]). Varshney et al (US 5264527, 527 hereafter). ‘527 discloses a triblock copolymer comprising blocks formed from (meth)acrylic monomers (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights