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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 01/02/2026.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
The IDS statements filed 03/08/2023 and 08/31/2023 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Applicant's timely election with traverse of species of the benzaldizine compound (and polymers thereof) where R1 is -NH2 (amino groups) in the reply filed on 01/02/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1-13 belong to the same field of search and there is no serious examination and examination burden to consider all claims in the same field. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 11/07/2025, there is indeed a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species of record because the species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. The Requirement for Restriction/Election also set forth the different species of benzaldazine compound (p-aminoacetophenone azine, p-hydroxyacetophenone azine, and p-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)acetophenone azine) result in different polymeric backbone structures of the claimed polymer formed by reacting the benzaldazine compounds/species with the recited co-reactants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3 and 7-13 were searched and examined only to the extent that they read on the elected species, as the elected species was found not to be allowable. Claims 4-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the terms “(a) benzaldazine compound,” “(b1) diamine compound,” “(b2) dianhydride compound,” and “(b3) epoxy resin,” are each objected to for their grammar in the claim. Applicant is suggested clarity could be improved in the claims if the terms were amended to recite grammatical articles at the beginning of the terms (for example, “(a) a benzaldazine compound,” or “a (a) benzaldazine compound,” “(b1) a diamine compound,” or “a (b1) diamine compound,” “(b2) a dianhydride compound,” or “a (b2) dianhydride compound,” “(b3) an epoxy resin,” or “a (b3) epoxy resin,”).
Claims 2, 3, and 7-10 are objected to for substantially the same reason as claim 1 in that clarity could be improved in the claims if the terms were amended to recite grammatical articles at the beginning of the (a) and (b) component terms (for example, “(a) the benzaldazine compound” or “the (a) benzaldazine compound”, “(b1) the diamine compound” or “the (b1) diamine compound”, “(b2) the dianhydride compound” or “the (b2) dianhydride compound”, and “(b3) the epoxy resin” or “the (b3) epoxy resin”).
In claim 13, “10.0 W/*K” appears to be typo for “10.0 W/m*K” (especially in view of the lower bound of the thermal conductivity range being “2.0 W/m*K”).
Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carfagna et al. (“Liquid-crystalline epoxy resins: a glycidyl-terminated benzaldehyde azine cured in the nematic phase”, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 195, 279-287, 1994).
As to claim 1, Carfagna et al. teach a polymer (a cured resin/thermoset) formed by reacting a benzaldazine compound with an epoxy resin. Specifically, the reference teaches a polymer formed by curing the two following compounds, “NA2” and “EF3”, which are p-aminoacetophenone azine and p-(2,3-epoxypropyl)acetophenone azine, respectively:
PNG
media_image1.png
125
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
117
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
See the abstract, Experimental part section on p.280, and Results and discussion section on p.281. NA2 reads on the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2, and EF3 is an epoxy resin and reads on the claimed epoxy resin (b3).
As to claim 2, the above teachings of the reference read on R1 is -NH2 and the polymer is formed by reacting the benzaldazine compound (a) with the epoxy resin (b3).
As to claim 3, the above teachings of the reference read on R1 is -NH2 and the polymer is formed by reacting the benzaldazine compound (a) with the diamine compound (b1) and the epoxy resin (b3); the reference’s NA2 reads on the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) and the diamine compound (b1) by double inclusion (the NA2 compound is both a benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2 and a diamine compound (b1) via the presence of two -NH2 amine groups).
As to claim 7, Carfagna et al. teach the curing/reaction of the two compounds are performed utilizing a mixture of the EF3 and NA2 compounds at a stoichiometric ratio (Experimental part section on p.280 and the Figures, e.g., Fig. 1). Curing/reaction of the two compounds at a stoichiometric reads on and meets the claimed parts by mole ratio of benzaldazine compound to epoxy resin of 1:1. Both compounds have two equivalents of their reactive groups (NA2 has two reactive -NH2 groups and EF3 has two reactive glycidyl groups), meaning a stoichiometric (equal) ratio of the two compounds equates to a 1:1 molar ratio of the components for their to be two equivalents of amino groups to two equivalents of glycidyl groups.
Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakemi et al. (EP 724006 A1).
As to claim 1, Hakemi et al. teach polymeric composites comprising a liquid crystalline main chain epoxy resin which is the reaction product formed from an epoxy-based prepolymer material and a curing agent (see the abstract and generally p.5-11; p.5-7 give a broad background and variety of the epoxy prepolymer material, p.7-8 list seven preferred epoxy prepolymer materials, p.8-11 give a broad background and variety of the curing agent, p.11 list two preferred curing agents, and p.11 also discloses the prepolymer material and curing agent are cured together which means the two compounds are reacted with one another to form a polymer). Of the two preferred curing agent compounds, one of the curing agent compounds has the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
83
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Id. on p.11), which reads on the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2. All of the broad epoxy prepolymer materials and preferred epoxy prepolymer materials are epoxies and read on the claimed epoxy resin (b3). As one of the two curing agents is the claimed benzaldazine compound, all of the prepolymer materials are epoxies, and the two components are cured together (Id.), the cited teachings of the reference are sufficiently specific to at once envisage and therefore anticipate the instantly claimed limitations of a polymer formed by reacting a benzaldazine compound according to the claimed formula where R1 is -NH2 and an epoxy resin, as claimed.
If this were not enough, also note that Example 11 referenced on both p.21 and p.27 discuss the formation of a polymer from “DIF” and “NA2”. DIF is p-(2,3-epoxypropyl)oxybiphenyl per p.8 & p.16, and NA2 is well known in the art as p-aminoacetophenone azine (and is the same preferred curing agent referenced above from p.11) which is the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2 (see, e.g., the Carfagna et al. NPL reference, above). Accordingly, the cited teachings of the reference certainly meet and anticipate the instantly claimed limitations of a polymer formed by reacting a benzaldazine compound according to the claimed formula where R1 is -NH2 and an epoxy resin, as claimed.
As to claim 2, the above teachings of the reference read on R1 is -NH2 and the polymer is formed by reacting the benzaldazine compound (a) with the epoxy resin (b3).
As to claim 3, the above teachings of the reference read on R1 is -NH2 and the polymer is formed by reacting the benzaldazine compound (a) with the diamine compound (b1) and the epoxy resin (b3); the reference’s NA2 reads on the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) and the diamine compound (b1) by double inclusion (the cited exemplary/preferred curing agent compound is both a benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2 and a diamine compound (b1) via the presence of two -NH2 amine groups).
As to claim 7, Hakemi et al.’s Example 11 references a DIF/NA2 (i.e., p-(2,3-epoxypropyl)oxybiphenyl to p-aminoacetophenone azine) weight ratio of 5.7/1. As DIF and NA2 have molecular weights of about 298 g/mol and about 266 g/mol, respectively, a 5.7/1 weight ratio of DIF/NA2 has a molar ratio of NA2/DIF, in terms of the claimed invention, of about 0.197:1, which is within the claimed ratio of range of 0.11:1 to 2:1.
Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakemi et al. (EP 724006 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, and optionally further in view of Liu et al. (WO 2017/066929 A1).
The disclosure of Hakemi et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Hakemi et al. teach a polymer formed by reacting a benzaldazine compound according to the instantly claimed formula where R1 is -NH2 and an epoxy resin, as described above. One of seven preferred epoxy prepolymer compounds in the reference is p-(2,3-epoxypropyl)oxybiphenyl (DIF):
PNG
media_image4.png
78
557
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Id.), aka 4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether. This exemplary compound meets the claimed epoxy resin (b3) comprising 3,3’,5,5’-tetramethyl-4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether except for the presence of the four methyl groups substituted on the central rings (the 3,3’,5,5’-tetramethyl- portion of the compound).
However, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art the two compounds (the disclosed 4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether and the claimed 3,3’,5,5’-tetramethyl-4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether) are of such close chemical structure similarity and function that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the claimed compound from the disclosed compound in the expectation that the two compounds similar in structure will have similar properties. See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
As support of this close structural similarity rationale, note that Hakemi et al., in their broad epoxy formula encompassing the preferred/exemplary DIF epoxy compound, the epoxy has the broad formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
52
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where “M is a group containing two or more aromatic rings bridged by a rigid central linkage group” (where the rigid central linkage group can merely be a direct bond in the both the list of typical rigid groups and by example via the DIF having the two aromatic rings directly linked) so that the epoxy compound is a liquid crystalline thermosettable epoxy resin (LCER) with mesogenic or rigid-rod molecules end capped with reactive epoxy groups (p.4, 5, & 13). The M being two directly linked phenylene groups or two directly linked 3,5-dimethyl-phenylene groups are both encompassed by the reference’s disclosure of two aromatic brings bridged by a rigid central linkage group, and there is a very reasonable expectation that the two compounds similar in structure (one where M is two directly linked phenylene groups and the other where M is two directly linked 3,5-dimethyl-phenylene groups) will have similar liquid crystalline properties.
If this were not enough, the same limitation(s) of the epoxy resin comprising 3,3’,5,5’-tetramethyl-4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether are nevertheless obvious further in view of the teachings of Liu et al.
Liu et al., like Hakemi et al., is similarly drawn to curable epoxy resins and teaches the epoxy resins comprise an aromatic mesogenic moiety, i.e., an aromatic structure moiety capable of forming a liquid crystal state, comprising a rigid chain comprising a bridged bond -X- in the center the aromatic mesogenic moiety where both sides of the bridged bond connect with benzene rings to form a conjugate system (p.4). Liu et al.’s aromatic mesogenic moiety has the structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
101
328
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where p may be zero (and thus the bridged bond is a direct bond) and R2 is independently selected from hydrogen or a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms (p.4). This formula encompasses structures with two directly linked phenylene groups that may optionally have methyl (C1 hydrocarbyl groups) at any one or more of the 2-, 3-, 5-, and 6-positions of the phenylene groups and gives a strong reasonable expectation such structures all possess liquid crystalline properties when utilized as central groups in an epoxy resin/compound. Note the extreme similarity between Liu et al.’s aromatic mesogenic moiety structure and Hakemi et al.’s mesogenic/rigid-rod M group.
Thus, Liu et al. serves as additional evidence supporting the above rejection over Hakemi et al. that the two compounds (Hakemi et al.’s disclosed 4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether and the claimed 3,3’,5,5’-tetramethyl-4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether) are of such close chemical structure similarity and function that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the claimed compound from the disclosed compound in the expectation that the two compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.
The claim is also alternatively obvious further in view of Liu et al. in that, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an aromatic mesogenic moiety having the structure of two directly linked 3,5-dimethyl-phenylene groups as taught and encompassed by Liu et al. as the two directly linked aromatic/phenylene groups (M group) of Hakemi et al.’s epoxy resin (arriving at the claimed 3,3’,5,5’-tetramethyl-4,4’-diphenol diglycidyl ether) in order to obtain a mesogenic/liquid crystalline epoxy resin (LCER) with a very reasonable expectation of success.
Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobisawa (JP 2013-018928 A1). An English machine translation of Tobisawa is attached to the Office’s supplied copy of the reference, and citations to Tobisawa will be with respect to the English machine translation unless specified otherwise.
As to claim 1, Tobisawa et al. teach an epoxy resin composition comprising an epoxy resin and an epoxy resin curing agent that cures into a thermally conductive composition (abstract). This means a polymer is formed by reacting the epoxy resin and the curing agent. Suitable epoxy resins are listed and detailed on p.2 of the translation and meet the claimed epoxy resin (b3). The curing agent is a diamine having the formula (1):
PNG
media_image7.png
199
497
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where R1 to R4 are independently, among others, (and preferred) a hydrogen atom and X is, among others, an azine group of the structure (5):
PNG
media_image8.png
152
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where R’ represents a hydrogen atom or methyl group (see the abstract and p.3 of the translation and the abstract, p.5 & p.6 of the original document for the structures/formulae). The diamine curing agent has a high planarity and high alignment which affords cured structures thereof excellent heat conductivity (p.3).
While the reference does not meet the claimed benzaldazine compound under the meaning of anticipation, the reference nevertheless strongly encompasses and meets the claimed benzaldazine compound in view of the above cited teachings. The resultant structure of the curing agent diamine formula (1) where R1 to R4 are hydrogen and X is an azine group of formula (5) where R’ are methyl groups is equivalent to the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2. Also, the curing agent is paired and reacted with an epoxy compound.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate and arrive a polymer formed by reacting a benzaldazine compound in which R1 is -NH2 with an epoxy resin from the teachings of Tobisawa with a reasonable expectation of success as Tobisawa’s curing agent overlaps/encompasses the claimed benzaldazine compound (Tobisawa motivates providing, in their curing agent diamine formula (1), R1 to R4 are hydrogen and X is an azine group of formula (5) where R’ are methyl groups to obtain a curing agent with high planarity and alignment to obtain excellent thermal conductivity) that is paired and reacted with an epoxy resin to obtain a thermally conductive composition.
As to claim 2, the above teachings of the reference read on R1 is -NH2 and the polymer is formed by reacting the benzaldazine compound (a) with the epoxy resin (b3).
As to claim 3, the above teachings of the reference read on R1 is -NH2 and the polymer is formed by reacting the benzaldazine compound (a) with the diamine compound (b1) and the epoxy resin (b3); the reference’s curing agent reads on the claimed benzaldazine compound (a) and the diamine compound (b1) by double inclusion (the cited curing agent structure is both a benzaldazine compound (a) in which R1 is -NH2 and a diamine compound (b1) via the presence of two -NH2 amine groups).
As to claim 7, regarding concentrations, Tobisawa teaches the epoxy resin composition has three main components, (A) an epoxy resin (the claimed epoxy resin component) preferably constituting 15-80 mass% of the composition, (B) an epoxy resin curing agent (which can be p-aminoacetophenone azine, the claimed benzaldazine compound), and (C) an inorganic filler preferably constituting 2-80 mass% of the composition (p.3 & 4). It stands to very fairly reason the concentration of the epoxy resin curing agent (benzaldazine compound) is the remainder of the concentrations of the epoxy resin and inorganic filler components subtracted from 100 mass%. This overlaps and encompasses the claimed molar ratio of benzaldazine compound to epoxy resin of 0.11:1 to 2:1. Note the suitable epoxy resins are listed and detailed on p.2 of the translation – for example, first and foremost, bisphenol A type epoxy resin, i.e., bisphenol A diglycidyl ether. For example, a composition of (and/or made from) 15 mass% bisphenol A diglycidyl ether, 70 mass% inorganic filler, and remainder 15 mass% p-aminoacetophenone azine corresponds to a molar ratio of p-aminoacetophenone azine to bisphenol A diglycidyl ether of about 0.86:1 (using the molecular weights of about 266 g/mol and about 228 g/mol, respectively), which is within the claimed ratio of range of 0.11:1 to 2:1. Similarly, a composition of (and/or made from) 15 mass% bisphenol A diglycidyl ether, 80 mass% inorganic filler, and remainder 5 mass% p-aminoacetophenone azine corresponds to a molar ratio of p-aminoacetophenone azine to bisphenol A diglycidyl ether of about 0.29:1 (using the molecular weights of about 266 g/mol and about 228 g/mol, respectively), also within the claimed ratio of range of 0.11:1 to 2:1. Additional rationale exists over the vast number of other disclosed alternative and preferred epoxy species in the reference.
As to claim 10, Tobisawa teaches the epoxy resin comprises bisphenol A epoxy resin (Id.).
As to claim 11, Tobisawa teaches the composition, when cured, is thermally conductive and further comprises an inorganic filler reading on the claimed inorganic powder (Id.) Tobisawa teaches the inorganic filler is thermally conductive (p.3) and the diamine curing agent affords cured structures thereof excellent heat conductivity (Id.). Note the discussion of concentrations discussed above regarding claim 7. The composition has three main components, (A) an epoxy resin (the claimed epoxy resin component) preferably constituting 15-80 mass% of the composition, (B) an epoxy resin curing agent (which can be p-aminoacetophenone azine, the claimed benzaldazine compound), and (C) an inorganic filler preferably constituting 2-80 mass% of the composition (p.3 & 4). The individual amount of inorganic filler and the sum of the epoxy resin and epoxy resin curing agent (meeting the claimed polymer) collectively overlaps the claimed 2-30 parts by weight concentrations of a polymer formed from the epoxy resin and curing agent and 70-98 wt.% of an inorganic powder.
As to claim 12, Tobisawa teach the inorganic powder comprises aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, and boron nitride (p.3).
As to claim 13, Tobisawa’s examples attain cured materials having thermal conductivities of greater than 2.0 W/m∙K and less than 10.0 W/m∙K (see the Table of Fig. 2 in the original document). If this were not enough (it is noted the examples do not utilize the same diamine/benzaldazine curing agent and concentration(s) as that instantly claimed), the claimed thermal conductivity of 2 to 10 W/m∙K would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to flow naturally from the above modifications made in the above rationale(s) as the rationale encompasses providing inorganic filler species and/or increasing the amount of inorganic filler the reference deems having excellent thermal conductivity as well as providing a modified/formulated diamine/benzaldazine curing agent the reference also describes as contributing excellent thermal conductivity to the composition (Id. on p.3 & p.4).
Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including the limitations of the base claim without reciting the (b3) epoxy resin and limited to the elected benzaldazine compound species.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest a polymer formed by reacting p-aminoacetophenone azine with any one or more of the recited diamine compounds and/or dianhydride compounds.
Carfagna et al. (“Liquid-crystalline epoxy resins: a glycidyl-terminated benzaldehyde azine cured in the nematic phase”, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 195, 279-287, 1994) teach a polymer (a cured resin/thermoset) formed by reacting a benzaldazine compound with an epoxy resin, specifically, a polymer formed by curing p-aminoacetophenone azine and p-(2,3-epoxypropyl)acetophenone azine, together (abstract, p.280, & p.281). Carfagna et al. fail to teach or suggest the presence of the particular diamine compounds and/or dianhydride compounds (or reaction product thereof with p-aminoacetophenone azine), as claimed.
Hakemi et al. (EP 724006 A1) teach polymeric composites comprising a liquid crystalline main chain epoxy resin which is the reaction product formed from an epoxy-based prepolymer material and a curing agent where the curing agent is preferably p-aminoacetophenone azine (see the abstract, p.5-11, & p.20). While Hakemi et al. further teach the broad aspects of the curing agent compound may comprise either amine groups and anhydride groups and therefore broadly encompasses diamines and dianhydrides (see the terminating Z groups of the formula Z-N-Z which may be an amine group, acid group, or anhydride group on p.8 & p.17), the curing agent formula neither meets nor encompasses the particular diamine compounds and/or dianhydride compounds (or reaction product thereof), as claimed, due to the central N group of the formula being “a group containing two or more aromatic rings bridged by a rigid central linkage group”. Despite the number of curing agents encompassed by Hakemi et al.’s formula, none of them meet or encompass the particular diamine compounds and/or dianhydride compounds (or reaction product thereof with p-aminoacetophenone azine), as claimed.
Tobisawa (JP 2013-018928 A1) teaches an epoxy resin composition comprising an epoxy resin, a diamine epoxy resin curing agent, and an inorganic powder that cures into a thermally conductive composition (abstract). This means a polymer is formed by reacting the epoxy resin and the diamine curing agent. Tobisawa’s diamine curing agent has a particular formula represented by formula (1):
PNG
media_image7.png
199
497
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where R1 to R4 are independently, among others, (and preferred) a hydrogen atom and X is, among others, an azine group of the structure (5):
PNG
media_image8.png
152
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where R’ represents a hydrogen atom or methyl group (see the abstract and p.3 of the translation and the abstract, p.5 & p.6 of the original document for the structures/formulae), which amounts to p-aminoacetophenone azine. While Tobisawa teaches the diamine curing agent may alternatively comprise six other general, central X groups (see p.5 & p.6 of the original document), these aspects of the curing agent formula neither meet nor encompass the particular diamine compounds, as claimed. Despite the number of curing agents encompassed by Tobisawa’s formula, none of them meet or encompass the particular diamine compounds (or reaction product thereof with p-aminoacetophenone azine), as claimed. Tobisawa also fails to teach or suggest the presence of the particular dianhydride compounds (or reaction product thereof with p-aminoacetophenone azine), as claimed.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the Examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
February 18, 2026