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
The Examiner notes that claims 1-5 and 14-21 are being rejoined and examined as set forth below along with elected claims 6-13.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear from the claimed invention what the Applicants are claiming as their invention as the recitation of “at least about 2.0” has ambiguously recited the lower limit of the relative permittivity.
The Examiner notes that it is unclear, at least from the perspective of applying prior art to the claimed invention, how close to 2.0 relative permittivity the prior art must teach or suggest in order to anticipate or overlap the relative permittivity in the presently claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b), Item (A).
Regarding claim 2, as noted above in the rejection of current claim 1, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the styrene, polybutadiene, sulfurous ester, isopropenyl toluene and methylphenylacetylene.
Regarding claims 4, as noted above in the rejection of current claims 1-2, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the antioxidant.
Regarding claim 5, as noted above in the rejection of current claims 1-2 and 4, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the plasticizer.
Claims 6-13 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear from the claimed invention what the Applicants are claiming as their invention as the recitation of “at least about 2.0” has ambiguously recited the lower limit of the relative permittivity.
The Examiner notes that it is unclear, at least from the perspective of applying prior art to the claimed invention, how close to 2.0 relative permittivity the prior art must teach or suggest in order to anticipate or overlap the relative permittivity in the presently claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b), Item (A).
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what is intended by a relative permittivity expressed in units of wt%.
Regarding claim 7, as noted above in the rejection of current claim 6, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the styrene, polybutadiene, sulfurous ester, isopropenyl toluene and methylphenylacetylene.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, as noted above in the rejection of current claims 6-7, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the antioxidant.
Regarding claim 10, as noted above in the rejection of current claims 6-7, 9 and 17, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the plasticizer.
Claims 14-16 and 18-21 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.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear from the claimed invention what the Applicants are claiming as their invention as the recitation of “at least about 2.0” has ambiguously recited the lower limit of the relative permittivity.
The Examiner notes that it is unclear, at least from the perspective of applying prior art to the claimed invention, how close to 2.0 relative permittivity the prior art must teach or suggest in order to anticipate or overlap the relative permittivity in the presently claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b), Item (A).
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what is intended by a relative permittivity expressed in units of wt%.
Regarding claim 15, as noted above in the rejection of current claim 6, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the styrene, polybutadiene, sulfurous ester, isopropenyl toluene and methylphenylacetylene.
Regarding claim 18, as noted above in the rejection of current claims 6-7, 9 and 17, the current claim demonstrates the same ambiguity in the “at least about” recitations for content of the plasticizer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and claims 6-13 and claims 14-21 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is:
KR 940001525 B1 to An et al. (machine translation provided with the current action) teaches an adhesive composition comprising a vinyl monomer, a butadiene polymer (polybutadiene) and sulfuric acid ester (sulfurous ester) (paragraph bridging pages 2-3), which said vinyl monomer comprises styrene (page 3) The adhesive composition further comprises toluene (first three paragraphs of page 4).
An is silent to the toluene comprising isopropenyl toluene, and to the disclosed adhesive composition further comprising methylphenylacetylene and demonstrating a relative permittivity of 2.0 to 2.5 as recited in at least current claim 1 and current claim 6 and current claim 14.
Claims 1-5 and claims 6-13 and claims 14-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 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, Alicia A Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 6/21/2026
Prosecution Insights