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 appli-cation 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The submission dated 2/12/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This rejection is maintained from the previous office action. Applicants’ remarks have been considered but are not deemed persuasive, for reasons noted below.
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.
Claims 12, 13, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2019/0023863, herein Lesser et al.
Lesser et al. teach a composition in which a first polymer is melt polymerized in
the presence of a second polymer. See for instance the abstract and paragraph 24.
The first polymer can be a thermosetting polymer and can be a cyanate ester polymer. See paragraph 26. This meets the requirement of claimed component (A). The skilled artisan would immediately recognize that such thermosetting polymers will possess at least two reactive groups to provide for crosslinking and due to the conven-tional and known nomenclature in the art.
The second polymer can be formed from a siloxane, specifically a cyclic siloxane as shown in paragraph 34 and on, specifically paragraph 40. This teaches octaphenyl-tetracyclosiloxane as a useful second polymer and meets claimed (B).
From these teachings of a first polymer which can be a cyanate ester and a second polymer which can be octaphenyltetracyclosiloxane, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the combination of these two components in a cross linkable composition to have been obvious. In this manner claims 12 and 19 are rendered obvious.
For claims 21 to 22 see paragraph 52, among others, which teaches molding the crosslinked composition.
For claim 13, see paragraphs 42 and 47 which refer to the addition of fillers.
Applicants’ traversal presents arguments that are not based on the claimed limitations per se. It correctly notes that the claims are directed to a “cross linkable” composition that is a mixture or blend of components which is subsequently cured (emphasis added). The Examiner places emphasis to make a point. The composition of claim 12 is not cured. The newly added limitation refers to the cured thermoset formed from the composition, but there is no requirement that this curing occurs. For instance there is nothing that prohibits the composition of claim 12 from undergoing monomer polymerization such as that found in Lesser et al. Additionally given the fact that Lesser et al. teach both of the required components in claim 12 the resulting composition would be expected to meet this limitation if or when the composition of Lesser et al. were to be cured.
To further emphasize this point please note that claim 20 is no longer embraced
by this rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesser et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gaku et al. 4,554,346.
This claim requires at least one fiber reinforcing filler (E1) Lesser et al. teach the addition of fillers but fail to teach specific fillers. As the skilled artisan would recognize, the selection of a filler will be dependent upon the final utility and the desired properties of the product.
As Gaku et al. teach in column 7, line 8 and on, fiber reinforcing agents are known to be useful as a reinforcing agent in cyanate ester cured resins.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look towards known fillers that are useful in cyanate ester cured resin compositions to determine what would be useful and beneficial as the filler in Lesser et al. In view of the teachings of Gaku et al., the skilled artisan would have found the addition of a fiber reinforcing filler to the composition of Lesser et al. to have been obvious. It is prima facie obvious to add a known ingredient to a known composition for its known function.
With regard to the claimed component (D1) note that the thermosetting polymers in Lesser et al. can be used in combination (end of paragraph 26) such that the skilled artisan would have found the addition of an epoxy, found in paragraph 26, in addition to the cyanate ester polymer to have been obvious. In this manner the components in claim 15 is rendered obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesser et al. in view of the Primaset brochure.
The teachings in Lesser et al., noted supra, teach cyanate ester polymers rather
than specifically teaching a monomeric dicyanate or oligomeric novolac cyanate.
The instant specification cites Primaset® PT-15, 30, 60 and 90 as examples of compounds that meet the requirement of monomeric dicyanates.
As is evidenced by the attached Primaset® brochure, these cyanate esters are considered resins. As such, reading claim 14 in light of the specification, the monomeric dicyanates in claim 14 embrace what are known as cyanate ester resins. In addition, as the skilled artisan would recognize, a thermosetting resin is a type of thermosetting polymer, as both terms refer to materials that undergo irreversible curing to form a sold structure.
In other words, in this technology, a thermosetting resin is considered a thermo-setting polymer. As such the cyanate ester polymers in Lesser et al. are met by the resins in the Primaset® brochure and, correspondingly, these known and commercially available cyanate esters meet those found in paragraph 26 of Lesser et al.
As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a cyanate ester Primaset® compound, as shown in the attached brochure, to be the cyanate ester polymer in paragraph 26 of Lesser et al. with the expectation of obtaining useful and predictable results. In this manner claim 14 is rendered obvious.
Applicants rely on the patentability of claim 12 in an effort to overcome these rejection. Since claim 12 remains rejected, claims 14 and 15 remain rejected as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The totality of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. Note that this claim is directed to a process in which the composition is cured to result in a shaped article having the specific water absorption property. This curing step and the specific physical properties are different from the polymerization in Lesser et al. such that this claim distinguishes itself from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
Mgm
2/19/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765