DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortelt et al. (US 2018/0162991, “Ortelt”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 13, Ortelt teaches a product (e.g., [0006]) made from a two-component curable composition comprising a partially (meth)acrylated epoxy resin ([0032] – [0043], may include, e.g., glycidyl methacrylate and/or additional epoxy components; the Examiner notes that the claims do not strictly require the inclusion of an additional epoxy compound). Ortelt additionally teaches the inclusion of a second component comprising a polyamine having at least two amine hydrogens that are reactive to epoxide groups ([0025] – [0028], [0045] – [0075]). Ortelt additionally teaches that the ratio of epoxy/acrylate groups to amine hydrogen equivalent groups may be on the range of from 0.5 to 1 to 1:1.1 ([0025] – [0029], [0043]). While Ortelt generally teaches the ratio of epoxy groups to the reactive functional groups of amine, because the ratio of acrylate to epoxy may be 1:1 (e.g., [0040], glycidyl methacrylate), the ratio of stoichiometric ratio epoxy/acrylate to amine may also be considered to be within the claimed range and it further would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to adjust the ratio of reactive components in order to provide a suitably reactive resin composition. Ortelt additionally teaches that the above may be the only components in the composition (see generally [0032] – [0075], and thus the composition may be considered only to consist of the above). The Examiner notes, with regard to the ratio of amine hydrogen equivalent components to the reactive epoxy or acrylate groups, that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ortelt additionally teaches that the first component may comprise from 90 to 100 wt% of a partially (meth)acrylated epoxy resin (e.g., [0040], where, for example, the entirety of the epoxy resin may be this (meth)acrylated component).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ortelt additionally teaches that the ratio of epoxide to (meth)acrylate groups in the partially (meth)acrylated epoxy resin may be on the range of 1:1 ([0040], glycidyl methacrylate, which has an epoxide to acrylate ratio of 1:1).
Regarding claim 7, Ortelt additionally teaches that the (meth)acrylated component may comprise a diepoxide having an epoxide equivalent weight of less than 500 g/eq ([0033], [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Ortelt additionally teaches that the at least one partially (meth)acrylated resin may be, for example, a bisphenol A type digycidyl ether([0034], [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Ortelt additionally teaches that the at least one polyamine has one primary and at least one secondary amino group ([0050] – [0052]; [0044] – [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Ortelt additionally teaches that the ratio of epoxy/acrylate groups to amine hydrogen equivalent groups may be on the range of from 0.5 to 1 to 1:1.1 ([0025] – [0029], [0043]).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortelt as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ushiyama et al. (US 2019/0330464, “Ushiyama”).
Regarding claim 6, Ortelt fails to specifically teach the viscosity of the (meth)acrylated epoxy resin. However, in the same field of endeavor of curable resin compositions, particularly for use with reinforced products ([0001] – [0010]), Ushiyama teaches that an epoxy resin having a viscosity on the range of from 0.1 to 300 Pa.s (100 to 300,000 cps, [0057]) provides the resin with good workability and thus adjusting the viscosity of the (meth)acrylated epoxy resin of Ortelt to within this range would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (see Ushiyama, [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Ortelt fails to specifically teach the polyamine has an amine hydrogen equivalent weight of not more than 150 g/eq. However, Ushiyama teaches that such polyamines are known and useful in the creation of resins for use in reinforced plastic materials and that by using materials having these properties the elastic modulus, toughness and heat resistance of the cured resin product may be controlled to fall within favorable ranges (e.g., [0003] – [0005], [0099] – [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used such a polyamine as those described by Ushiyama in order to provide favorable elastic modulus, toughness and heat resistance of the cured resin product (e.g., [0003] – [0005], [0099] – [0101]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782