CTNF 18/745,200 CTNF 85106 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 , in the reply filed on 01 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown it would be a “serious burden” to perform a complete search and examination on all of the claims as originally filed . This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions require a different field of search, and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 AIA Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01 May 2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(EDTA.2Na.Cu(II))” appears to have a typographical error . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2, 8, 10, 11, and 13 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. 07-34-08 Regarding claims 2, 8, 10, and 13, the phrase "preferably” or “more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-05 AIA Claim 11 recites the limitation " wherein the peroxide " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al. (CN111662654), wherein the machine English translation is used for citation . Regarding claims 1-2, 6, and 10 ; Yi et al. teaches a two component adhesive comprising a component A and a component B. The A component includes the following raw materials in parts by weight: 35 to 65 parts of (meth)acrylate monomer, such as hydroxyethyl methacrylate [064], 8 to 25 parts of toughening agent (rubber) [038], 0.1 to 2 parts of stabilizer, 2 to 15 parts of accelerator (adhesion promoter) [040], 3 to 15 parts oxidant (radical initiator, such as benzoyl peroxide) [042], 3-10 parts of polyurethane acrylate oligomer, 1-5 parts of auxiliary agent [010]. The B component includes the following raw materials in parts by weight: 30 to 70 parts of (meth)acrylic monomer, such as hydroxypropyl acrylate [060], 5 to 20 parts of toughening agent, such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (rubber) [037], 0.1 to 2 parts of stabilizer, 1 to 10 parts of accelerator, 3 to 18 parts reducing agent, 3-10 parts of polyurethane acrylate oligomer, 1-5 parts of auxiliary agent [011]. Regarding claim 3 ; Yi et al. teaches the (meth)arylate monomer of the component B is employed in an amount of 30-50 parts [013]. Regarding claim 4 ; the Examiner makes note that the “urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer is formed” is a product-by-process limitation. Yi et al. teaches polyester urethane acrylate oligomers or polyether urethane acrylate oligomers [020]. The examiner notes that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ); see MPEP §2113. Regarding claim 7 ; Yi et al. teaches the toughening agent (rubber) is employed in an amount of 10-15 parts [012]. Regarding claim 12 ; Yi et al. teaches the toughening agent (nitrile butadiene rubber) is employed in an amount of 10-15 parts [012] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (CN111662654), wherein the machine English translation is used for citation, as applied to claim 1 above . Yi et al. teaches the basic claimed two component adhesive, as set forth above, with respect to claim 1. Regarding claim 9 ; Yi et al. teaches the accelerator (adhesion promoter) is employed in an amount of 2-7 parts [012]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the adhesion promoter in an amount of 2 parts by weight and would have been motivated to do so because Yi et al. teaches it suitable for the present invention. Regarding claim 11 ; Yi et al. teaches the oxidant (peroxide initiator) is present in an amount of 5-10 parts [012]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the oxidant an amount of 7 parts by weight and would have been motivated to do so because Yi et al. teaches it suitable for the present invention. Regarding claim 13 ; Yi et al. teaches the composition may comprise iron napthahenate [017]. Although Yi et al. teaches this compound as an accelerator, it is the Examiner’s position that the compound is capable of functioning as a reducing agent. The courts have held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch , 315F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). Further, attention is drawn to MPEP 2112.01, which states that “products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”, In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 14 ; Yi et al. teaches the reducing agent in an amount of 5-12 parts [013]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the reducing agent in an amount of 10 parts by weight and would have been motivated to do so because Yi et al. teaches it suitable for the present invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (WO 2021/051257) . Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 13, and 14 ; Sun et al. teaches, in a preferred embodiment, a first part of an acrylate adhesive, comprising Bisomer HPMA and HEMA (hydroxy functional acrylates), 12 wt% Nipol 1072CGX (butadiene-acrylonitrile-methacrylic acid copolymer rubber), 15 wt% CN959 (urethane acrylate oligomer), and 3 wt% Irgacure 819 (radical initiator) [Table1]; and a second part comprising Bismer HPMA and HEMA, 12 wt% Nipol 1072CGX, 0.3 wt% of vanadyl acetylacetonate and copper acetylacetonate (reducing agent), and 2 wt% kayamer PM-2 (bis(2-methacryloxyethyl) phosphate; adhesion promoter) [Table2]. Sun et al. fails to teach, in the preferred embodiment, the adhesion promoter in the first part, however contemplates the addition of the adhesion promoter in first part or the second part of the adhesive [p12, para4]. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including the non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.); See MPEP §2123. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the adhesion promoter in the first part, and would have been motivated to do so since Sun et al. teaches it suitable in the present invention. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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 M ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 2 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 3 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 4 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 5 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 6 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 7 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 8 Art Unit: 1767 Application/Control Number: 18/745,200 Page 9 Art Unit: 1767
Prosecution Insights