DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd paragraph (b)
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 10 and 16-19 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 10, claim 10 recites the limitations "monomer unit b)" and "monomer unit c)" in the curable precursor of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 1 features "monomer unit a)". The "monomer unit b)" is introduced in claim 8, and the "monomer unit c)" is introduced in claim 9.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, claim 16 recites the limitation "b) partially curing the curable precursor of step a) by initiating a photoinitiator for the free-radically self-polymerizable material by actinic irradiation," when referring to the curable precursor of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a photoinitiator in the claim. The photoinitiator is introduced in claim 4. Furthermore, it is unclear how or when this photoinitiator is introduced to the precursor for this partial curing to take place. Claim 17 is rejected because it is dependent from claim 16.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, claim 18 recites the limitation "a) applying a curable precursor or a partially cured precursor according to claim 1 onto a substrate ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only features a curable precursor. It does not feature a partially cured precursor. Claim 19 is rejected because it is dependent from claim 18.
Further regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitation "further comprising, prior to step c), partially curing the curable precursor of step a) by initiating a photoinitiator for the free-radically self-polymerizable material by actinic irradiation," when referring to the curable precursor of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a photoinitiator in the claim. The photoinitiator is introduced in claim 4. Furthermore, it is unclear how or when this photoinitiator is introduced to the precursor for this partial curing to take place.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 4th paragraph (d)
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 6 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 1 features “a thermally activatable curing agent for the epoxy resin” (singular). Claim 6 attempts to further limit the curing agent with a material: selected from the group consisting of dicyandiamide, polyamines, polyamine adducts, and any combination thereof. The any combination thereof improperly shifts the scope from a singular material to multiple materials.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/998,677 (unpublished). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented – see MPEP 804 I.B.1.(b)(ii).
Regarding claims 1-16, 18, and 19:
Copending claims 1-14 satisfy all the limitations of claim (1);
Copending claims 2-3 satisfy all the limitations of claim (2);
Copending claim 3 satisfies all the limitations of claim (3);
Copending claim 14 obviously satisfies all the limitations of claim (4);
Copending claim 5 satisfies all the limitations of claim (5);
Copending claim 6 satisfies all the limitations of claim (6);
Copending claim 7 satisfies all the limitations of claim (7);
Copending claim 8 satisfies all the limitations of claim (8);
Copending claim 9 satisfies all the limitations of claim (9);
Copending claim 10 satisfies all the limitations of claim (10);
Copending claim 4 satisfies all the limitations of claim (11);
Copending claim 11 satisfies all the limitations of claim (12);
Copending claim 12 satisfies all the limitations of claim (13);
Copending claim 14 satisfies all the limitations of claims (14-16);
Copending claims 13-14 satisfy all the limitations of claim (18);
Copending claim 14 satisfies all the limitations of claim (19).
Regarding claim 17, the copending claims fail to disclose a process: (17) further comprising removing the partially cured precursor of a structural adhesive article obtained in step b) or the substantially fully cured structural adhesive article obtained in step c) from the substrate. However, this would have been obviously satisfied by any re-positioning or cleaning of excess adhesive in the bonding method of copending claims 13-14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Aside from the double patenting rejection, claim 1 would be allowable.
Aside from the double patenting rejection, claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Aside from the double patenting rejection, claims 10 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Aside from the double patenting rejection, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, 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 claimed invention in drawn to: (1-13) a curable precursor of a structural adhesive composition, (14-15) a partially cured precursor of a structural adhesive composition, (16-17) a method of manufacturing a structural adhesive article with the curable precursor, and (18-19) a method of bonding two parts with the curable precursor. The curable precursor comprises:
(A) an epoxy resin;
(B) a thermally activatable curing agent for the epoxy resin;
(C) a first toughening agent; and
(D) a second toughening agent comprising a free-radically self-polymerizable material represented by the formula: LR1q
wherein each R1 is independently selected from a functional group represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: each R2 is independently hydrogen or methyl; n is an integer from 1 to 5, inclusive; X is O, S, or NH; and Y is a single bond or a divalent group represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
108
136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein: N' is a nitrogen bonded to the carbonyl carbon of R1; and T is a divalent group selected from the group consisting of a linear alkylene, a cyclic alkylene, an unsubstituted arylene, a substituted arylene, and combinations thereof;
q is an integer of at least 2; and
L is a q-valent organic polymer comprising a monomer unit represented by the formula a)
PNG
media_image3.png
112
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R3 is a hydrogen, a (meth)acrylate group, or a Z-terminated alkyl or heteroalkylene chain, wherein each Z-terminated chain may independently include a linkage selected from the group consisting of a secondary amino linkage, a tertiary amino linkage, an ether linkage, and combinations thereof, and wherein each Z is independently O, S, or NH.
Agarwal et al. (US 2010/0130655 A1) represents the closest prior art. They disclose an epoxy-based adhesive composition formulated with:
(A) an epoxy resin (paragraphs 0013-0019);
(B) a thermally activatable curing agent for the epoxy resin (paragraphs 0059-0062);
(C) a first toughening agent (paragraphs 0020-0034 and/or 0048-0058); and
a polyurethane having urethane and/or urea linkages (paragraphs 0035-0042).
The polyurethane material of Agarwal et al. includes (meth)acrylate functionalized polyurethanes (see paragraphs 0036-0040), which are formed by reacting an isocyanate-terminated urethane prepolymer with an isocyanate-reactive (meth)acrylate (see paragraphs 0036-0037). However, they fail to disclose the instantly claimed second toughening agent (D) represented by the formula: LR1q.
Mahoney et al. (US 2022/0325022 A1 or U.S. Pat. No. 12,378,340) disclose a “crosslinker” that satisfies instantly the claimed second toughening agent (D) represented by the formula: LR1q (see patented claims 1, 2, & 18-20). This material is prepared with an isocyanate-functional (meth)acrylate and an isocyanate-reactive polyether (see exemplary embodiments), which is different from the reaction discussed in Agarwal et al. These “crosslinkers” are formulated to cure/crosslink with other (meth)acrylate monomers (see patented claims 3-7, 16 & 17). However, there is no motivation formulate the epoxy-based composition of Agarwal et al. with the “crosslinker” of Mahoney et al. because the curing mechanism described by Mahoney et al. is unrelated to the curing mechanism featured in the epoxy-based composition of Agarwal et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Popp (US 2011/0313082 A1), Desai et al. (US 2012/0129980 A1), and Agarwal et al. (US 2008/0188609 A1) all disclose related epoxy-based adhesive compositions formulated with tougheners.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
September 25, 2026
