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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosedo US 6046257 in view of Dupont Engineering Polymers (Retrieved from: https://www.emcoplastics.com/assets/pdf/acetal/Extrusion%20Applications%20Nylon%20Delrin%20Hytrel%20Dupont.pdf, October 19th 2017).
Regarding claim 7, Oosedo teaches a composition comprising an epoxy resin, a thermoplastic elastomer, and a curing agent such as dicyandiamide. The curing agent dicyandiamide reads on the claimed “latent curing agent.” The epoxy resin reads on the claimed “epoxy resin.” The thermoplastic elastomer reads on the claimed “thermoplastic elastomer.” The thermoplastic elastomer has a melting point of 100C or higher (Col. 7 Lines 2-5). This reads on the claimed “100C or higher.” The thermoplastic elastomer is 1-20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the epoxy resin (Col. 10 Lines 30-35). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10-40 parts by weight. Oosedo teaches in suitable thermoplastic elastomers include Hytrel polymers produced by Dupont (Col 9 Lines 3-5). Oosedo is silent on the specific Hytrel polymers. Oosedo also teaches the compositions can be used in industrial and aerospace applications (Col. 1 Line 20).
Dupont teaches Hytrel polymers suitable for industrial and aerospace applications (Page 2, and Page 7). The Hytrel polymers taught by the handbook include G3548L, 4056, G4074, and G4078W, G4774, G5544, 5556, 5586, 6356, 6358, 7246, 7248, 8238, and HTR4275BK. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a Hytrel 4056, because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07
Hytrel 4056 has a melting point of 154C and a flexural modulus of 62 MPa. This falls within the claimed range of 10-100 MPa (Page 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762