DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on June 5, 2026 in response to the Office action (OA) mailed on March 20, 2026 (“previous OA”) have been fully considered.
Support for the amendment to claim 1 can be found in paragraph 0064 of US Patent Application Publication No. 20250188322 A1 of the present application (“the published application”).
In view of the amendment, the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the previous OA that are not maintained are withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, new ground of rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(d) are introduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 17, and 18 are allowed.
The closest prior art to claim 1 are Schuh et al. (WO 2017186528 A1; US 20190144717 A1) and Everaerts et al. (US 6734256 B1).
Schuh discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) tape comprising a moisture curing composition (curable adhesive) comprising (A) 5-60 parts by weight of at least one film forming component; (B) 40-95 parts by weight of at least one epoxide component (one or more polymerizable Y compounds); (C) 10-500 parts by weight of at least one moisture-activable curing agent, and optionally (D) 0.1-15 parts by weight of at least one stabilizer; and optionally (E) 0.1-200 parts by weight of at least one additive, (0001-0006).
As to claim 1, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Schuh is that Schuh is silent as to disclosing “one or more (meth)acrylate block copolymers X…one or more initiators…wherein a first polar fraction…”
Everaerts discloses a hot melt processable adhesive such as PSA or heat-activable adhesive composition comprising a (meth)acrylate block copolymer of structure A-B-A (abstract and column 4, lines 20-25). Further, Everaerts discloses that the A block of the A-B-A is derived from a monoethylenically unsaturated (meth)acrylate monomer which as a homopolymer has Tg of more than 50°C (“wherein the A blocks independently of each other are poly(meth)acrylate having a glass transition temperature Tg or 50°C or more, which is producible by polymerization of A monomer composition of A monomers”) (column 4, lines 40-45), and the B block is derived from a monoethylenically unsaturated (meth)acrylate monomer which as a homopolymer has Tg of less than about 20°C (“wherein the B block is a poly(meth)acrylate having a glass transition temperature Tg of less than 50°C, which is producible by polymerization of B monomer composition of B monomers”) (column 4, lines 55-60). Moreover, Everaerts discloses that the block copolymers are elastomeric components (column 7, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 1, Everaerts is silent as to disclosing e.g. “a first polar fraction….a second polar fraction…”.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claims 11-16 (“The curable adhesive composition”) is inconsistent with the preamble of the base claim 1 (“The curable adhesive compound”) .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “cationic photoinitiator” and “radical initiator. Specification fails to provide support for this recitation.
Claim 20 recites “at least one triarylsulfonium salt”. Specification fails to provide support for this limitation. Specifically, the specification discloses salt such as triarylsulfonium hexafluoroantimonate (0064 of the published application). Therefore, while there is support to claim a triarylsulfonium hexafluoroantimonate, there is no support to broadly claim “at least one triarylsulfonium salt”.
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 11, 19, and 20 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.
As to claim 11, this claim recites “epoxy monomers”. This claim depends from claim 2, wherein claim 2 recites “epoxy compounds”. It is unclear whether the recitation “epoxy monomers” refer to the “epoxy compounds” or additional epoxy monomers. The examiner submits that claim recitation “epoxy monomers” should be replaced with “epoxy monomers as the epoxy compounds”.
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the one or more initiators are selected from the group consisting of at least one cationic photoinitiator, at least one radical initiator, and at least one termally activated initiator”. It is unclear what is meant by “termally activated initiator”.
As to claim 20, this claim depends from claim 19 and further recite “The curable adhesive compound according to claim 19, wherein the one or more initiators comprises at least one triarylsulfonium salt.” Claim 19 recites “wherein the one or more initiators are selected from the group consisting of at least one cationic photoinitiator, at least one radical initiator, and at least one termally activated initiator.” The claim recitation “the one or more initiators comprises” is open to presence of other unrecited initiators and other due to the phrase “comprises”. See MPEP 2111.03 (I). However, the recitation “selected from the group consisting of” limits the scope of the claim to the initiators recited in the claim due to the presence of “consisting of”. See MPEP 2111.03 (II). As such, the aforementioned claim recitation is indefinite.
Further, as to claim 20, it is unclear whether “at least one triarylsulfonium salt” is additional initiator or further refers to one of the initiator recited in the base claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the one or more initiators are selected from the group consisting of at least one cationic photoinitiator, at least one radical initiator, and at least one termally activated initiator”. Claim 1 recites “one or more initiators selected from the group consisting of radiation-activated initiators and thermally activated initiators.” As such, claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the amendment have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejections as set forth in the current Office action.
Conclusion
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 ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights