DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,480,082) in view of Oosedo et al. (US 2002/0007022).
Regarding claim 1: McLean et al. teaches a polymeric material/epoxy resin composition (col. 1 lines 65-68) comprising an amount of tetrafunctional epoxy/N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenyl methane (col. 3 lines 40-45), an amount of an amine hardener (col. 3 lines 54-68), and a low molecular weight oligomer/”fortifier” (col. 4 lines 10-15) of 4-hydroxyacetanilide (col. 4 lines 30-35) and vinyl cyclohexene dioxide (col. 4 lines 55-60) and DGEBA (example 2). These compounds are commonly known to be man-made from, for example, petroleum products. Even if such compounds could be found in the natural environment, purification would be needed before use. Therefore, these compounds are “synthesized”. The ability of the oligomer to reduce creep and relaxation is a latent property of the compound itself. Mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II). McLean et al. teaches 100 parts epoxy and 34 + 4 parts curing agent (example 5), which is a ratio of the epoxy weight amount to the hardener weight amount of 1:0.38.
McLean et al. teaches an amount of the fortifier/additive is up to about 40% based on the weight of the resin/polyepoxide (col. 5 lines 45-51). McLean et al. does not teach an amount of curing agent to calculate the amount of additive per resin and hardener that leads to an overlapping amount. However, Oosedo et al. teaches the curing agent/dicyandiamide can be in an amount of 5 parts per 100 parts epoxy (example 2). Therefore, 40/105 x 100 = 38 parts additive per 100 parts epoxy and hardener, which overlaps the claimed range. Oosedo et al. and McLean et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely epoxy compositions with 4-hydroxyphenylacetamide additives. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the amount of amine of Oosedo et al. in the composition of McLean et al. and would have been motivated to do so to have less unreacted curing agent present in the finished product.
Regarding claim 10: McLean et al. teaches the tetrafunctional epoxy is 4,4’-methylenebis(N,N-diglycidylaniline), which is N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenyl methane (col. 3 lines 40-45). McLean et al. does not teach the hardener 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl sulfone. However, Oosedo et al. teaches 4,4’-diaminodiphenylsulphone (para. 42). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl sulfone of Oosedo et al. in the composition of McLean et al. and would have been motivated to do so since McLean et al. teaches that any amine curing agent known in the art, and 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl sulfone is a well-known amine curing agent.
Regarding claim 19: McLean et al. teaches the basic claimed polymeric material set forth above. Not disclosed is the property that the material has a reduction in relaxation modulus of 34% or less at 1 year, 20 °C. However, mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II).
Regarding claim 20: McLean et al. teaches the tetrafunctional epoxy is 4,4’-methylenebis(N,N-diglycidylaniline), which is N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenyl methane (col. 3 lines 40-45) and a low molecular weight oligomer/”fortifier” (col. 4 lines 10-15) of 4-hydroxyacetanilide (col. 4 lines 30-35) and vinyl cyclohexene dioxide (col. 4 lines 55-60) in a molar ratio range of 1:0.8 (col. 4 line 65) to 1:2.1 (col. 7 lines 10-15), which overlap the claimed range. The ability of the oligomer to reduce creep and relaxation is a latent property of the compound itself. Mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II).
McLean et al. does not teach the hardener 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl sulfone. However, Oosedo et al. teaches 4,4’-diaminodiphenylsulphone (para. 42). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl sulfone of Oosedo et al. in the composition of McLean et al. and would have been motivated to do so since McLean et al. teaches that any amine curing agent known in the art, and 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl sulfone is a well-known amine curing agent.
McLean et al. teaches an amount of the fortifier/additive is up to about 40% based on the weight of the resin/polyepoxide (col. 5 lines 45-51). McLean et al. does not teach an amount of curing agent to calculate the amount of additive per resin and hardener that leads to an overlapping amount. However, Oosedo et al. teaches the curing agent/dicyandiamide can be in an amount of 5 parts per 100 parts epoxy (example 2). Therefore, 40/105 x 100 = 38 parts additive per 100 parts epoxy and hardener. Oosedo et al. and McLean et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely epoxy compositions with 4-hydroxyphenylacetamide additives. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the amount of amine of Oosedo et al. in the composition of McLean et al. and would have been motivated to do so to have less unreacted curing agent present in the finished product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 18, 21, and 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Pellegrino et al. is the closest prior art. However, the limitation regarding the amount of oligomer additive in terms of the tetrafunctional epoxy and the amine hardener is not taught by the primary or secondary reference. In order to reject these limitations, one would have to modify the secondary reference, which is not permitted. There is no teaching or suggestion found in the prior art to make or use a deployable structure as claimed in claims 11, 12, 18, 21 and 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and declaration filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that McLean et al. and Oosedo et al. do not teach the limitation that the low molecular weight oligomer creep reducing, relaxation reducing additive concentration is at least 35 grams per 100 grams of a combined weight of the tetrafunctional epoxy and the amine hardener is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection set forth above, Oosedo et al. teaches 38 parts additive per 100 parts epoxy and hardener. This teaching overlaps the claimed range since 38 is “at least 35”. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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 on 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767