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 Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Woulters fails to teach the required Tc/Ti ratio and thus, there is a unity of invention . This is not found persuasive because , as cited in the rejection below , the claimed Tc/Ti ratio is found to be taught and/or inherent by the Iwamoto reference and thus, the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature because it does not make a contribution over the art . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 10-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/06/2026. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein Tc is the curing time and Ti is the induction time.” The term “ curing time” and “induction time ” in claim 1 are considered relative term s which renders the claim indefinite. The term s “ curing time” and “induction time ” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is because it is known in the art that curing time and induction times are entirely dependent on the temperatures used. Althou gh, the Applicant’s specification does appear to define the curing times and induction times by measuring the complex viscosity η* changes over time, the Applicant states that these measurements are found over an “ appropriate temperature” range , (See para 49-52 and 161-164 of the US publication), which causes the Tc and Ti times to be a relative term because it is unclear what an “appropriate” temperature entail . Furthermore, the specification does not appear to define what an “appropriate” temperature range would be. Claims 2-9 are dependent claims which fail to alleviate the issues above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,126,423 A to Iwamoto et al. (hereinafter Iwamoto). Regarding claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 , Iwamoto teaches a thermosetting composition comprising a polyepoxide, a polyisocyanate, and a catalyst (See abstract). Specifically, the composition comprises bisphenol A epoxy resin (eew 175 g/eq), a complex of 0.33 g of zinc diiodide (ZnI2) and 0.05 g of tetraphenyl antimony iodide (Ph2SbI), 2.32 g of diphenylmethane diisocyanate (29% NCO groups, or 144.8 g/eq), and 0.444 g of isophorone diisocyanate (eew 111.1 g/eq). (Example 8, col 10, ln 35-53). The above zinc diiodide meets the claimed inorganic salt of claim and the above complex meets the claimed onium halide salt. The above also correlates to an inorganic salt to epoxy group molar ra tio of 0.005, an NCO/epoxy group molar ratio of 0.82, which meets claim 9. Iwamoto further teaches the catalyst is specifically a complex from a mixture of LiBr and (Me2N)3PO, which meets the claimed alkali metal halide salt and onium halide salt of claims 2 and 8. Iwamoto further teaches the above is used in molding products and are cured. (col 6, ln 57, to col 7, ln 25). Regarding the claimed Tc/Ti properties, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the thermosetting composition of Iwamoto to have the claimed properties of Tc/Ti because it is a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention , specifically, the above composition of Iwamoto teaches the claimed polyisocyanate, the bisphenol-A-based epoxy resin, and inorganic salt, with the above amounts correlating to about 0.005 moles of inorganic salt per moles of epoxy group and 0.82 NCO/epoxy group molar ratio, and the Applicant further cites in their specification that the properties of curing speed, curability and latent properties are directly when the mole ratio of inorganic salt (c)/epoxy groups(a) is the range of 0.003 to 0.05 (“curability and latent property,” para 53-54 of US publication), and the molar ratio of NCO/epoxy groups is in the range of 0.7-2.0 , (“high curing speed ,” para 46 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). 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. 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. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 108530874 A to Li et al. (hereinafter Li). Regarding claim s 3 -4 , as cited above and incorporated herein, Iwamoto teaches claim 1. Iwamoto does not explicitly teach the component (d) of claim 3. However, Li teaches a carbon fiber prepreg prepared from an epoxy resin matrix comprising an epoxy resin, a polyurethane prepolymer from a diisocyanate and polyether diol, and a catalyst (See abstract and page 1), which is the same field of use of epoxy resin compositions containing polyisocyanates of the Applicant’s invention. Li further teaches a polyethylene glycol (Mw of 1000) is added to a composition of diphenylmethane diisocyanate to from a prepolymer which is then further added to an epoxy resin composition. (Example 2), which meets the claimed compound (d). Li further teaches the addition of the polyol reacts with the diisocyanate to produce flexible polyurethane segments and improves toughness of the resin matrix. (page 3). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to further include the polyethylene glycol of Li in the epoxy composition of Iwamoto because Li teaches the same field of use of epoxy resin compositions containing polyisocyanates of the Applicant’s invention and Li further teaches the addition of the polyol reacts with the diisocyanate to produce flexible polyurethane segments and improves toughness of the resin matrix. (page 3). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2000-336191 A to Fujino et al. (hereinafter Fujino ). Regarding claim 7 , as cited above and incorporated herein, Iwamoto teaches claim 1. Iwamoto does not explicitly teach elastomer toughener of claim 7. However, Fujino teaches a carbon fiber prepreg prepared from an epoxy resin composition comprising an epoxy resin, a curing agent, (See abstract and para 16), and a polyester polyurethane (para 64), which is the same field of use of epoxy resin compositions containing polyisocyanates of the Applicant’s invention. Fujino further teaches the epoxy resin composition may further include rubber particles in order to improve the toughness and impact resistance of the composite material. (para 101-104). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to further include the rubber particles of Fujino in the epoxy composition of Iwamoto because Fujino teaches the same field of use of epoxy resin compositions containing polyisocyanates of the Applicant’s invention and Fujino further teaches the epoxy resin composition may further include rubber particles in order to improve the toughness and impact resistance of the composite material. (para 101-104). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7395 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /HA S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766