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 .
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.
Claims 1-11, 21, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koopmans (US 2020/0385507 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Koopmans teaches a composition comprising a bisepoxide compound (B) (i.e. an epoxy resin) (p. 2, [0024]); a diisocyanate compound (A) (i.e. an isocyanate curing agent) (p. 2, [0019]); a compound comprising a mono-epoxide group and/or a mono-isocyanate group (D) (i.e. a hydroxyl group capping agent) (p. 3, [0034]); and a catalyst (C) (p. 3, [0032]).
The molar ratio of epoxy resin to diisocyanate is preferably from 45:55 to 55:45 (p. 3, [0030]), equivalent to a stoichiometric ratio of 0.81 to 1.22. This falls within the claimed range of 0.5 to 2.0. Therefore, Koopmans reads on all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Koopmans remains as applied to claim 1 above. Koopmans is silent as to the peak temperature characteristics of the ingredients. Nevertheless, Koopmans teaches a composition of identical ingredients in identical proportions to the claimed composition. Koopmans’ composition with therefore necessarily possess the same peak temperature characteristics as the claimed composition. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 6-9, Koopmans remains as applied to claim 1 above. Koopmans' catalyst may be lithium bromide (p. 8, [0109]). Koopmans further teaches use of triphenyl-o-methoxyphenyl phosphonium bromide as the catalyst (p. 9, [0110]).
Regarding claim 10, Koopmans remains as applied to claim 1 above. Koopmans further teaches a wide array of articles formed by heating (thermally curing) and pressing into a desired shape (p. 6, [0074]-[0075]; p. 5, [0057]).
Regarding claims 11, 21, and 31, Koopmans remains as applied to claim 1 above. Koopmans further teaches use of reinforcing fibers such as glass, carbon, or natural fibers (p. 5, [0065]).
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.
Claims 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koopmans in view of Matsukawa (EP 4063436 A1, attached).
Regarding claims 32-35, Koopmans remains as applied to claim 1 above. Koopmans teaches reacting the ingredients at elevated temperature to complete the reaction (p. 10, [0130]). However, Koopmans is silent as to what variety of curing takes place. In the same field of endeavor, Matsukawa teaches a thermosetting epoxy composition that is cured by heating to form a molded article (p. 4, [0022]; p. 8, [[0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Koopmans and the curing method of Matsukawa to arrive at the claimed invention, and to achieve shortened molding time and improved impregnation of the fibers, as taught by Matsukawa (p. 8, [0061]).
Koopmans' composition may further include fibers (p. 5, [0065]). Matsukawa teaches injecting a composition into a reinforcing fiber base material to impregnate, then curing by heating after injection (p. 8, [0061]-[0062]). The composition may also be injected into a woven fabric of fibers (p. 9, [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Koopmans with the method of Matsukawa to arrive at the claimed invention, and to achieve shortened molding time and improved impregnation of the fibers, as taught by Matsukawa (p. 8, [0061]).
Koopmans teaches that the composition may be made by blending the bisepoxide with the mono-isocyanate (capping agent), then adding to a mixture of solvent, catalyst, and diisocyanate (p. 1-2, [0010] and [0013]). Alternatively, Koopmans teaches that the composition may be prepared by mixing the bisepoxide and catalyst in one solution, then adding the isocyanates (p. 1, [0011]). However, Koopmans is silent as to whether the isocyanates may be mixed in a separate solution before addition to the bisepoxide-catalyst solution. Nevertheless, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the indicated ingredients in any order, including that of the claims, in order to obtain the prior product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762