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 § 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 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (EP 0781802 A2, attached) in view of Hilker (US 2015/0291734 A1) and further in view of Boulonnais (EP 0366190 A1, attached).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 9, and 16, Ohashi teaches a cured, fiber-reinforced resin product including glass fiber cloth, unsaturated polyester, a peroxy curing catalyst, and organic phosphate compound (p. 6). A cobalt salt may further be added (p. 6). Ohashi’s fiber-reinforced resin composition (Abstract) may comprise solvents for the purpose of adjusting viscosity (i.e. diluents). Suitable solvents include styrene and (meth)acrylic acid esters (p. 5, line 56 – p. 6, line 4). These compounds are recognized in the art as containing polymerizable double bonds and are thus reactive. Ohashi’s composition therefore comprises a reactive diluent composition as claimed.
The composition further comprises a compound having structural formula (A) shown at page 2. This compound reads on the claimed formula (I) where R1 is H or Me; X1 and X2 are O; L is a C2 hydrocarbon linker; X3 is O; one of Rn and Rm is OH; and the other of Rn and Rm is either OH (where n=1) or Z (where n=2) with all variables as previously defined.
However, Ohashi is silent as to use of an iron salt or complex. In the same field of endeavor, Hilker teaches a composition including unsaturated polyester resin, reactive diluent, a copper salt/complex, and an iron salt/complex (Abstract). Iron and copper compounds may be used in combination (p. 5, [0049]; note “and/or” language).
Hilker further suggests that the iron and copper compounds can be used in combination with other metal salts/complexes, including cobalt (p. 6-7, [0055]). These ingredients may be added to similar compositions that contain cobalt salts (p. 2, [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, be to combine Ohashi’s cobalt salt with a combination of Hilker’s copper salt and iron salt to arrive at the claimed invention, and to improve hardness and curing efficiency, as taught by Hilker (p. 2, [0014]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hilker teaches use of iron(II) halides, and of the iron salt dimethyl 2,4-di-(2-pyridyl)-3-methyl-7-(pyridine-2-ylmethyl)-3,7-diaza-bicyclo[3.3.1]nonan-9-one-1,5-dicarboxylate, which is a pentadentate ligand having O and N donor groups (p. 1, [0005]; p. 5, [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claim 1 above. Ohashi further teaches use of cobalt naphthenate, a Co(II) salt (p. 6, line 19).
Regarding claim 6, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hilker further teaches use of Cu(I) and/or Cu(II) complexes (p. 5, [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hilker teaches that the iron complex and copper complex may be used individually or together, permitting content of each in amounts ranging from 0-100%. This results in ratios of iron to copper complex (transition metal complex) ranging from 0:100 to 100:0. This prior art range encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range encompasses the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claim 1 above. Ohashi teaches phosphorous compound content of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight (p. 4, line 8). In 1 kg of the composition, that would translate to 0.01-10 kg phosphorous compound, or 47.59-47,591 mmol/kg of 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate phosphate (210.12 g/mol). Hilker teaches total content of iron and copper in amounts of 0.001-10 mmol/kg or higher (p. 5, [0048]). These values result in ratios of phosphorous compound to metal content ranging from 0.001:1 to 10,000:1. This prior art range encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range encompasses the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 10-12, 14-15, and 19, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claim 1 above. Ohashi further teaches a method of mixing the ingredients alongside a resin, optional initiator and optional filler such as reinforcing fiber (p. 5, lines 27-34). The fiber may be glass fiber (p. 6, line 39). The optional filler may be calcium carbonate (p. 5, line 42). Ohashi and Hilker do not specifically address the flame retardancy and glass fiber adhesion of the composition. Nevertheless, Ohashi and Hilker teach a composition having the same ingredients in the same amounts as that of the instant claims. Therefore, the composition of Ohashi and Hilker will necessarily possess the same flame retardancy and glass fiber adhesion characteristics of the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above. Ohashi further teaches use of organic peroxide curing agents, including methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, benzoyl peroxide, and hydroperoxides (p. 6, lines 10-18).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of Hilker, and further in view of Ostendorf (US 2023/0203275 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ohashi in view of Hilker remains as applied to claims 1 and 5 above. However, these references do not limit what carboxylate compounds may be used. In a similar field of endeavor, Ostendorf teaches use of cobalt (II) 2-ethylhexanoate and copper(II) acetate (p. 8, [0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the Co alkyl carboxylate of Ostendorf for use in the composition of Ohashi as modified by Hilker to arrive at the claimed invention, and because of its art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
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