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 .
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 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.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04 February 2026 and 21 August 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 08 January 2025 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 7, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, each claim should recite in lines 1-2: “… monomer is present at a weight ratio of…” to have the correct verb tense.
Regarding claim 7, the preamble of the claim is awkwardly worded. The Examiner suggests reciting:
“The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises:
20 wt. % to 50 wt. % of the (meth)acrylic prepolymer; …”. This will remove the grammatical error of the preamble as well as clarifying that the claim intends to refer to the same (meth)acrylic prepolymer recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, each claim should recite in lines 1-2: “… monomer is present at a weight ratio of…” to have the correct verb tense.
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.
Claim 6 is 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the reference to “the monofunctional reactive monomer diluent” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as no such monofunctional diluent is referred to in claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Instead, claim 1 refers to a reactive monomer diluent but does not require it to be monofunctional.
The Examiner suggests either amending claim 1 to specify a monofunctional reactive monomer diluent, or amending claim 6 to remove the term “monofunctional”. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/232428 A1.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘428 discloses a photocurable adhesive composition, see p. 1, [0001]. The composition includes from 18-40 wt. % of a urethane (meth)acrylate resin oligomer component, reading on the claimed (meth)acrylate prepolymer, see p. 3, [0014-0016]. N,N-dimethylacrylamide is present in the amount of from 18-30 wt. %, see p. 4, [0020]. This reads on the claimed adhesion promoting diluting monomer. β-carboxyethyl acrylate dimer (which is a dimer of acrylic acid monomer, and is itself a reactive monomer) is present in the amount of 1.5-7.5 wt. %, see p. 4, [0021], reading on the claimed plasticizing adhesion promoting monomer. Isobornyl (meth)acrylate is present in the amount of 15-32 wt. %, see p. 4, [0019], reading on the claimed reactive monomer diluent. A photoinitiator is also present in the amount of 0.01 to 5 wt. %, reading on the claimed photoinitiator. While the claim notes that the composition optionally contains one or more additives and thus the additives are not required to be present in the composition, WO ‘428 teaches the use of an added fluorescent agent, see p. 4-5, [0024], reading on the claimed optional additive.
Table 1 presents exemplary compositions, see p. 10. The table is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Example 6, the composition includes 17 wt. % of BOMAR BR-582E8 and 17 wt. % of Block Resin, each of which is a urethane acrylate oligomer (see p. 9, [0035] and notes below Table 1 on p. 10), 25 wt. % of N,N-dimethacrylamide (DMAA), 5 wt. % of acrylic acid dimer (β-CEA), 30 wt. % of isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), 0.975 wt. % of photoinitiator (IRGACURE 184), and other additives (including GLYMO and TINOPAL OB). This composition anticipates the claimed radiation curable adhesive composition.
Regarding claim 2, in Example 6, the weight ratio of β-CEA to DMAA is 5:25, or 1:5 which is within the claimed range of 1:4 to 1:20.
Regarding claim 3, in Example 6, the weight ratio of DMAA to IBOA is 25:30, or 1.66:2, which is within the claimed range of 3:2 to 1:2.
Regarding claim 4, in Example 6, DMAA is present which reads on the claimed component.
Regarding claim 5, in Example 6, acrylic acid dimer (β-CEA) is present which reads on the claimed component.
Regarding claim 6, in Example 6, IBOA is present which reads on the claimed component.
Regarding claim 7, in Example 4, the composition includes 40 wt. % of Block Resin which is a urethane acrylate oligomer (see p. 9, [0035] and notes below Table 1 on p. 10), reading on the (meth)acrylic prepolymer; 25 wt. % of N,N-dimethacrylamide (DMAA), 5 wt. % of acrylic acid dimer (β-CEA), 24 wt. % of isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) reading on the monofunctional reactive monomer diluent, 0.975 wt. % of photoinitiator (IRGACURE 184), and other additives. This anticipates the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 8, in Example 6, TPO-L and GLYMO and TINOPAL OB each read on an additive and are present in the amount of greater than 0.1 wt. %.
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘428 teaches curing the inventive compositions with UV radiation, see p. 11, [0038].
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘428 teaches that the adhesive composition is formed between a stainless steel substrate and a polypropylene substrate, see p. 11, [0038]. The adhesive composition of Example 6 anticipates the claimed composition as detailed above in regards to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, in Example 6, the weight ratio of β-CEA to DMAA is 5:25, or 1:5 which is within the claimed range of 1:4 to 1:20.
Regarding claim 12, in Example 6, the weight ratio of DMAA to IBOA is 25:30, or 1.66:2, which is within the claimed range of 3:2 to 1:2.
Regarding claim 13, in Example 6, DMAA is present which reads on the claimed component.
Regarding claim 14, in Example 6, acrylic acid dimer (β-CEA) is present which reads on the claimed component.
Regarding claim 15, WO ‘428 teaches that the adhesive composition is formed between a stainless steel substrate and a polypropylene substrate, see p. 11, [0038].
Regarding claim 16, in Example 6, TPO-L and GLYMO and TINOPAL OB each read on an additive and are present in the amount of greater than 0.1 wt. %.
Regarding claim 17, the polypropylene substrate used in p. 11, [0038] is transparent to actinic radiation. See also p. 5, [0026].
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “being a transportation component or an electronic device” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02. In this case, WO ‘428 teaches that the substrates can comprise tubing for transfer of medical fluids, or as part of an implantable device, or for connecting to a medical device such as an insulin pump or hæmodialysis equipment. See p. 5-6, [0027]. The tubing acts as a transportation component for fluids. The medical device reads on an electronic device. Alternately, such tubing is capable of being used in a transportation device or the substrates are capable of being used in an electronic device.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights