DETAILED ACTION
This communication responds to the application and claim set filed November 21, 2024, and the Response to Restriction Requirement filed April 24, 2026. Claims 23-44 are currently pending.
The Requirement for Restriction dated March 26, 2026 is MAINTAINED. Non-elected claims 43 and 44 are WITHDRAWN. Claims 23-42 are under examination.
Elected claims 23, 24, 28-42 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth below.
Elected claims 25 and 27 are OBJECTED TO as depending from a rejected claim, but otherwise contain allowable subject matter.
Elected claim 26 is REJECTED under 35 USC 112, but otherwise contains allowable subject matter.
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 23-42, in the reply filed on April 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Arar does not teach the crosslinkable two-component composition of claim 23. This is not found persuasive. As discussed below, Arar teaches all of the limitations of claim 23.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
This application is the national stage entry of PCT/FR2023/050750, filed May 30, 2023, which claims priority to FR 2205202, filed May 31, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "for instance" in the limitation defining R” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. (See MPEP § 2173.05(d).)
Regarding claim 36, claim 23 (from which claim 36 depends) does not recite formulae (I)-(IV). For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret these formulae as monomers M1.
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 (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 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.
Claims 23, 24, 28-39, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arar et al., “Peroxide-free redox initiating systems for polymerization in mild conditions,” Polym. Chem., 2021, 12, 1816-1822.
Regarding claims 23, 24, 32-34, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42, Arar teaches a two-component adhesive composition, wherein the first component is an oxidation agent, including Cu(hfacac)2, the second component is a reducing agent, including sodium p-toluene sulfinate, and the monomer is a (meth)acrylate blend. (Abs.; Sections 2.1-2.2; Scheme 1; Fig. 1.) Regarding claim 24 specifically, Cu(hfacac)2 has a structure corresponding to formula (VII-2).
Regarding claims 28 and 37, the Cu(hfacac)2 is present in the amount of 1 wt.%. (Fig. 1.) The balance of component A is monomer.
Regarding claims 29-31, the identity and amount of halogenated carboxylic acid is immaterial because it need not be present when the organocopper compound is halogenated, as is taught by Arar.
Regarding claim 39, Arar teaches that inhibitors may be added to adjust gel time. (Section 3.4.)
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 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.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arar et al., Polym. Chem., 2021, 12, 1816-1822 as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Baldini et al. (US 2021/0024784).
Regarding claim 40, Arar teaches all of the limitations of claim 39. (See paragraph 19 above, which is incorporated by reference herein.)
The difference between Arar and claim 40 is that Arar does not teach a filler that is a thermally or electrically conductive filler. However, such fillers in adhesives are known in the art. For example, Baldini teaches an adhesive in which milled carbon fibers are added to enhance conductivity of the adhesive (see para. [0032]), and more generally teaches that other fillers, including nanomaterials and metal particles, may be added to promote conductivity (see paras. [0024]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an electrically conductive filler in the composition of Arar to improve electrically conductivity through the resulting adhesive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference (Arar, discussed above) does not teach or fairly suggest a composition in which a halogenated carboxylic acid is present when the organocopper compound is not halogenated. In addition, regarding claim 26, Arar teaches only a hfacac ligand, not one in which only one R group is halogenated, and provides no teaching or suggestion to modify it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE S BRANCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
CATHERINE S. BRANCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights