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 Status
Claim 1 has been amended. Support for the amendment to claim 1 is found, for example, in paragraph [0016] of the US publication of the present application and in Table 1. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kazunori is explicit that component amine (B) is a required part of the Kazunori invention and that the amine (B) must be aromatic. The aromatic amine of Kazunori is an epoxy curing agent (Id.). The present application describes that (B) the curing agent or curing accelerator used in an embodiment of the present technology is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include amine, acid anhydride, novolac resins, phenol, mercaptan, Lewis acid- amine complexes, onium salts, and imidazole (see, e.g., paragraph [0016] of the US publication of the present application). While an "amine" could be aromatic, the other curing agents are not aromatic amines. On this basis, claim 1 has been amended to claim the curing agent or curing accelerator being one or more selected from the group consisting of non-aromatic amine, acid anhydride, novolac resins, phenol, mercaptan, Lewis acid-amine complexes, onium salts, and imidazole. Because Kazunori requires an aromatic amine and could not be configured in the absence of an aromatic amine without destroying the Kazunori invention, the limitations of claim 1 cannot be considered obvious over Kazunori alone or combined with Kazuki.
The examiner agrees that Kazunori teaches the component (B) is an aromatic amine used as a curing agent [p. 0043]. However, Kazunori further teaches, from the viewpoint of processability and handleability, it is preferable to add a liquid amine to form a mixture of the liquid amine and the solid aromatic amine [p. 0043]. Kazunori teaches specific examples of the liquid amine include those classified as aliphatic amines, wherein examples include amines such as ethylene diamine and diethylene triamine [p. 0045]. Kazunori teaches when a mixture of a liquid amine and a solid amine is used as the curing agent, the solid aromatic amine is 20% to 80% by mass with respect to 100% by mass of the total amount of the aromatic amine as the component (B), from the viewpoint of the balance between impregnation property into the reinforcing giber and the mechanical properties of the resin cured product [p. 0047].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Kazunori with a liquid aliphatic amine and a solid aromatic amine as the aromatic amine (B) curing agent.
Claims 1-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazunori et al (JP 2017/149887 A).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5; Kazunori et al teaches an epoxy resin composition for fiber-reinforced composite materials [p. 0002]. comprising the following components (A) to (E): (A) epoxy resin, (B) aromatic amine curing agent, (C) compound having two or more aromatic rings having a phenolic hydroxyl group, (D) inorganic particles, and (E) core-shell polymer particles [p. 0016, 0043]. Kazunori further teaches, from the viewpoint of processability and handleability, for the curing agent (B), it is preferable to add a liquid amine to form a mixture of the liquid amine and the solid aromatic amine [p. 0043[. Kazunori teaches specific examples of the liquid amine include those classified as aliphatic amines, wherein examples include amines such as ethylene diamine and diethylene triamine [p. 0045]. Kazunori et al exemplifies the use of Aerosil50 (50 nm) silica particles as the inorganic particle (D) [p. 0096, table 1]. Kazunori et al exemplifies the use of Kane Ace MX416 (75 parts by mass Araldite MY721 epoxy resin, 25 parts by mass core-shell particles; 100 nm particle size ) as the core-shell particles (E) [p. 0073, 0096, table 1].
Kazunori et al exemplifies the following epoxy resin compositions:
Example 5, comprising (A) 73 parts by weight (pbw) epoxy resin (MY721 and jER825), (D) 1 pbw Aerosil50, and (E) 36 pbw MX 416 (27 pbw epoxy resin, 9 pbw core-shell particles), for a total of 100 pbw of epoxy resin; and,
Example 6, comprising (A) 73 parts by weight (pbw) epoxy resin (MY721 and jER825), (D) 8 pbw Aerosil50, and (E) 36 pbw MX 416 (27 pbw epoxy resin, 9 pbw core-shell particles), for a total of 100 pbw of epoxy resin [table 1].
Example 5 of Kazunori et al satisfies the claimed range of 1 to 5 pbw silica microparticles (C), and the claimed range of 2 to 10 pbw core-shell particles (D), however, example 5 fails to satisfy the claimed mass ratio of (C)/(D) of 1/1 to 1/5. On the other hand, example 6 of Kazunori et al satisfies the claimed range of core-shell particles (D), and the claimed mass ratio of (C)/(D), but fails to satisfy the claimed range of silica microparticles (C). In example 5, silica (D) is 0.7% of the overall composition, and the core-shell particles (E) are 6% of the overall composition. In example 6, silica (D) is 5% of the overall composition, and the core-shell particles (E) are 6% of the overall composition.
The general teachings of Kazunori et al contemplate an amount of 1% by mass or more and less than 20% of silica (D) by mass with respect to 100% by mass of the total mass of the epoxy resin composition, and an amount of 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% of (E) by mass with respect to 100% by mass of the total mass of the epoxy resin composition [p. 0076].
In light of this, a skilled artisan would appreciate the general teachings of Kazunori et al obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying all limitations instant claim 1, in an overlapping manner. For example, modifying the amount of silica in example 5 (1 pbw silica, 9 pbw core-shell particles) or example 6 (8 pbw silica, 9 pbw core-shell particles) to 1.8 to 5 pbw silica, as this silica content lies between the exemplified silica contents of Kazunori et al and is embraced by the general teachings of Kazunori et al. In the case where the composition of Kazunori is prepared in the manner of examples 5 or 6, with a content of silica from 1.8 to 5 pbw, the ratio of silica to core-shell rubber particles ranges from 1/2 to 1/5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the burden is shifted to applicants to show criticality for the mass ratio of components C and D.
Regarding claim 2, Kazunori et al is silent with respect to the tan delta as measured according to claim 2. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would expect a composition resulting from the teachings of Kazunori et al to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying these properties as the composition of Kazunori et al significantly satisfies the chemical and material limitations (and amounts thereof) of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 3; Kazunori et al teaches the epoxy resin of the component (A) is not particularly limited as long as it is a compound containing one or more epoxy groups in the molecule [p. 0017]. Kazunori et al exemplifies the use of (A) a bisphenol A type epoxy resin (jER825) [table 2, example 13], and the use of (E) MX153 and MX257, which comprise bisphenol A type epoxy resin and core-shell particles [table 1, example 9; table 2, example 10]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the epoxy resin composition of Kazunori et al wherein epoxy resin (A) does not contain a nitrogen atom.
Regarding claim 8; Kazunori et al teaches a thermosetting resin composition for a fiber-reinforced prepreg, wherein the thermosetting resin composition comprises the essential components of [a] an epoxy resin, [b] a thermoplastic resin, [c] elastomer fine particles, and [d] silica fine particles [p.0001, 0014].
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazunori et al (JP 2017/149887 A) in view of Kazuki et al (JP 2011/190430 A).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8; the disclosure of Kazunori et al is described above and is applied here as such to obviously satisfy the dependent claim limitations of claims 2-5 and 8. As discussed above, the general teachings of Kazunori et al contemplate an amount of 1% by mass or more and less than 20% of silica (D) by mass with respect to 100% by mass of the total mass of the epoxy resin composition, and an amount of 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% of (E) by mass with respect to 100% by mass of the total mass of the epoxy resin composition. Although the general teachings of Kazunori embrace the claimed amounts of silica, core-shell particles, and ratios thereof.
Kazunori is silent with respect to specific guidance to select a silica amount at the low end of the taught range.
Kazuki et al teaches a similar thermosetting resin composition and a fiber-reinforced prepreg, wherein the thermosetting resin composition comprises [a] epoxy resin, [b] thermoplastic resin particles, [c] core-shell particles, and [d] silica fine particles [p. 0001, 0011, 0017]. Kazuki et al teaches the silica fine particles [d] have an effect of imparting thixotropy to an epoxy resin, in order to prepare a prepreg that is excellent in surface tack holding performance, and when it is formed into a composite material, a resin layer serving as an impact absorbing layer is formed between layer structures, and excellent impact resistance is obtained [p. 0053]. Kazuki et al teaches the particle diameter of the silica fine particles is preferably 0.1 µm or less [p. 0054]. Kazuki et al teaches when the content of silica [d] is 1.3 parts by mass or more, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the epoxy resin, there is an effect of suppressing a decrease in viscosity during curing of the epoxy resin composition and exhibiting high thixotropy, so that sufficient impact resistance is obtained [p. 0055]. Kazuki et al further teaches when the content of silica [d] is 10 parts by mass or less, it can be uniformly kneaded with the resin composition, wherein a more preferable range for silica [d] is 1.5 parts by mass or more and 5 parts by mass or less, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the epoxy resin [p. 0055].
In view of the teachings of Kazuki et al, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the epoxy resin composition of Kazunori et al with 1.5 parts by mass or more and 5 parts by mass or less of silica particles in order to uniformly knead the particles with the resin composition and impart sufficient impact resistance. Embodiments of Kazunori et al prepared with 1.5 to 5 pbw silica (D) (instead of 1 pbw and 8 pbw silica as seen in examples 5 and 6) embrace all limitations of instant claim 1 [table 1]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, the disclosure of Kazunori et al is described above and is applied here as such.
Kazunori et al is silent with respect to the tan delta as measured according to claim 2. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would expect a composition resulting from the teachings of Kazunori et al to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying these properties as the composition of Kazunori et al significantly satisfies the chemical and material limitations (and amounts thereof) of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 3; the disclosure of Kazunori et al is described above and is applied here as such.
Kazunori et al teaches the epoxy resin of the component (A) is not particularly limited as long as it is a compound containing one or more epoxy groups in the molecule [p. 0017]. Kazunori et al exemplifies the use of (A) a bisphenol A type epoxy resin (jER825) [table 2, example 13], and the use of (E) MX153 and MX257, which comprise bisphenol A type epoxy resin and core-shell particles [table 1, example 9; table 2, example 10]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the epoxy resin composition of Kazunori et al wherein epoxy resin (A) does not contain a nitrogen atom.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the combined teachings of Kazunori et al and Kazuki are described above and is applied here as such.
Kazunori et al is silent with respect to a thermoplastic resin.
Kazuki et al, as relied on for preferred range of silica particles, teaches the use of a thermoplastic resin [b] [p. 0037]. Kazuki et al teaches when the thermoplastic resin is used in combination with the other essential components, it is possible to specifically suppress a decrease in the viscosity of the epoxy resin composition during the cure of the epoxy resin composition and to exhibit high thixotropy [p. 0037]. The content of the thermoplastic resin [b] is in the range of 5 parts by mass or more and 40 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the epoxy resin. When the content is 5 parts by mass or more, sufficient impact resistance can be obtained, and further, to specifically suppress a decrease in viscosity during curing of the epoxy resin composition and to exhibit high thixotropy [p. 0043]. When the content is 40 parts by mass or less, the resin can be kneaded without excessively increasing the viscosity of the resin composition [p. 0043].
In light of this, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare the composition of Kazunori et al with 5 to 40 pbw of a thermoplastic resin, with respect to 100 pbw of epoxy resin, in order to suppress a decrease in viscosity of the epoxy resin composition during cure. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Kazuki et al teaches it is preferable that these thermoplastic resins [b] have a functional group reactive with thermoset resins from the viewpoint of improving toughness and maintaining the environmental resistance of cured resins, wherein particularly preferred examples of the functional group include a hydroxyl group [p. 0041]. Kazuki et al teaches the thermoplastic resin (B) is at least one member selected from the group consisting of polyethersulfones, polyetherimides, polyvinylformals and phenoxy resins [p. 0016].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a phenoxy resin as the thermoplastic resin in the composition of Kazunori et al as Kazuki et al teaches, from the viewpoint of improving toughness and maintaining the environmental resistance of cured resins, it is preferable that the thermoplastic resin has a functional group capable of reacting with thermoset resins, wherein hydroxyl groups are particularly preferred.
Regarding claim 8; the disclosure of Kazunori et al is described above and is applied here as such.
Kazunori et al teaches a thermosetting resin composition for a fiber-reinforced prepreg, wherein the thermosetting resin composition comprises the essential components of [a] an epoxy resin, [b] a thermoplastic resin, [c] elastomer fine particles, and [d] silica fine particles [p.0001, 0014].
Conclusion
Regarding the claimed mass ratio of silica microparticles (C) to the core-shell rubber particles (D), the examiner appreciates comparative example 4 [table 1-3] demonstrates poor results for the resin flow during curing, which is attributed to a (C)/(D) of 1/7, which is below the claimed range of 1/1 to 1/5. However, this demonstration of criticality of the claimed range is incomplete as applicants fail to provide further evidence of poor results where (C) and (D) are within the defined limits but (C)/(D) is greater than 1/1 (ex. (C)=4 and (D)=3). In light of this, the showings are not considered to demonstrate that the claimed range achieves unexpected results.
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 HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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.
/HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766