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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 8, 14-15, and 18-19 as well as the cancelation of claims 2-3, 11, and 16 along with the addition of claim 21. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The applicant has amended claim 8. As a result, the previous 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilbrook (US 20110262630) in view of Kanayama (JPS 6198727).
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, and 18-20,
Tilbrook teaches a composition that is comprised of at least one difunctional epoxy resin and one epoxy resin with greater than two epoxide functionalities (Abstract) which includes a thermoplastic polymer (Paragraph 110) and a curing agent (Paragraph 95) or combination of curing agents (Paragraph 97) which includes aromatic amines such as 4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane, 3,3’-DDS and 4,4’-DDS (Paragraph 99). While Tilbrook discloses the use of aromatic amine-based curing agents, Tilbrook does not teach the use of 4,4’-methylenebis(2,6-xylidine). Kanayama teaches the use of an aromatic curing agent of the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
112
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which R1 and R2 are methyl or ethyl groups (Paragraph 6). Kanayama teaches that the addition of the alkyl groups ortho to the amine groups reduces water absorption in the cured resin as well as improving the pot life of the composition, which is problematic with the unsubstituted variant (Paragraph 3). Kanayama further teaches that such compositions are commonly used in vehicles and aircraft (Paragraph 1), where water absorptions would be problematic. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the ortho-alkylated version of aromatic amine for the unsubstituted version in order to avoid these issues in the cured composite. Further, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that Kanayama teaches compositions that are broadly similar to those as taught by Tilbrook, as Kanayama teaches the use of this curing agent with epoxy resins such as bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (Paragraph 6) as well as with carbon fiber and inorganic fillers (Paragraph 8) which are used by Tilbrook. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the curing agent of Kanayama with the composition of Tilbrook to obtain the predictable result of a composition with increased pot life and reduced water absorption with a reasonable expectation of success. Because Tilbrook teaches that this diamine can be used alone, the composition would meet the requirement of no other catalysts reactive with epoxy resins.
With regard to the use of curing agents in combination, Tilbrook teaches that curing agents can be used singly (Paragraph 95) or in combination (Paragraph 97). Tilbrook further teaches that curing agent(s) are selected to provide curing of the resin at suitable temperatures (Paragraph 105) and as noted above, includes 3,3’-DDS and 4,4’-DDS (Paragraph 106), meeting the requirements of claim 20. With regard to the curing temperature and time, Tilbrook teaches that both the curing time and temperature are related to the selection and amount of curing agent (Paragraph 105) and states that the selection of the curing agents is determined in part based upon the desired ranges for these parameters (Paragraph 105). As such, both the curing time and temperature as well as the amount of each curing agent relative to the others would be recognized as result-effective variables based upon this teaching. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used any combination of curing agents, curing time, and temperature that achieved the desired cured product.
With regard to the use of polyarylsulfone polymers and polyamide particles, Tilbrook teaches the use of toughening particles that can be made of polyamides (Paragraph 111) and specifically utilizes Orgasol 1002 DNAT 1 (Paragraph 93) which is a polyamide-based spherical particle) and also teaches the use of thermoplastic resins such as polyphenyl sulfone and polyether sulfones (Paragraph 110) and notes in a preferred composition the use of a polyether sulfone (Paragraph 126), meeting the requirements of the instant claims.
Regarding Claim 4,
Tilbrook teaches that the amount of curing agent can be 5 to 45% by weight, but is preferred to be between 15 and 25% by weight (Paragraph 107). Tilbrook also teaches that toughening agents and particles, which includes thermoplastic polymers (Paragraph 111), is preferred to be 5 to 25% by weight (Paragraph 116) and that the amount of epoxy resin is preferably between 5 and 75% by weight (Paragraph 46). The ranges for the thermoplastic other than the epoxy and curing agents are contained within the ranges of the instant claim, while the epoxy amount overlaps with the range of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that properties such as strength and damage tolerance would be affected by the relative amounts of the components of the composition (Paragraphs 3 and 4) and would therefore be motivated to adjust the amounts in order to obtain the desired material characteristics. It would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8,
Tilbrook teaches the use of multifunctional epoxy resins including triglycidyl meta aminophenol (Paragraph 44) as well as difunctional epoxy resins including diglycidyl ethers of bisphenol A and F (Paragraph 30). Further, Tilbrook teaches in a preferred embodiment the combination of bisphenol F diglycidyl ether and triglycidyl-m-aminophenol (Paragraph 126), meeting the requirements of the instant claims.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10,
Tilbrook teaches the use of fillers (Paragraph 119), including the use of conductive fillers such as conducting grades of carbon and metals (Paragraph 120) and that such components are preferred in amounts of 5 to 25% by weight, which overlaps with the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portions of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 12-14,
Tilbrook teaches the use of fibrous reinforcement (Paragraph 53) which is preferred to be carbon fiber (Paragraph 54) and that the fiber may be unidirectional or woven (Paragraph 56) and that the fiber can be fully impregnated by the epoxy resin (Paragraph 52).
Regarding Claim 15,
Tilbrook teaches that the composition may be cured at a suitable temperature, pressure, and time condition according to what is known in the art (Paragraph 127), While Tilbrook does not explicitly teach shorter cure times and lower cure temperatures or the degree of cure, as noted above, Tilbrook does allow for curing times and temperature that deviate from those listed and notes that curing agent(s) are selected to provide curing of the resin at suitable temperatures (Paragraph 105). As such, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that Tilbrook teaches optimization of the curing agent selection and amount in order to adjust the curing time and temperature. It would therefore have been obvious to have selected any curing time and temperature that afforded material with the desired physical properties.
Regarding Claim 17,
Tilbrook in view of Kanayama is silent on the glass transition temperatures of the cured material. However, As the combination of Tilbrook and Kanayama teaches the use of compositions that contain broadly similar components in overlapping amounts, it would logically follow that the cured compositions according to the teachings of Tilbrook in view of Kanayama would have similar physical properties.
Regarding Claim 21,
Tilbrook in view of Kanayama teaches the composition components required as discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 19. Tilbrook further teaches that the composition is applied to fibrous reinforcement which can be partially or fully impregnated with the composition (Paragraph 123).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/202/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
On page 7, the applicant argues that Tilbrook does not teach the 4,4’-methylenebis(2,6-xylidine) curing agent nor does Tilbrook in view of Kanayama teach the reduced curing time and temperature of the composition. While the examiner agrees that Tilbrook does not teach the use of the curing agent of claim 1, Tilbrook does not prohibit the use of non-listed curing agents and merely provides a list of preferred options. Indeed, Tilbrook states that the curing agents of the invention are those the facilitate reaction of the epoxy compounds (Paragraph 96). Kanayama does teach the use of this curing agent and also states that it extends pot life and reduced water absorption as noted in the rejection, which provides the motivation to use it in the composition taught by Tilbrook. While neither Tilbrook nor Kanayama teach the curing time and temperature required in the instant claims, Tilbrook notes these parameters are a result of the curing agents and amounts selected, or put a different way, the curing agents are selected based upon curing time and temperature that are desired (Paragraph 105) as noted in the rejection. Further, as the end result is to obtain a cured composition, the time and temperature would be experimentally determined by when the curing reaction was complete. As such, the curing time and temperature would be result-effective variables.
Also on page 7, the applicant argues that Kanayama teaches the use of curing accelerators and therefore does not teach the use of the curing agent on its own. The examiner notes that Kanayama teaches that curing accelerators “can” be used (Paragraph 8), but does not teach them to be explicitly required. Additionally, as Kanayama also uses methylene dianiline or diamino diphenylsulfone in the comparative examples (Paragraph 17) which similarly contains a curing accelerator, the latter of which is also utilized by Tilbrook (Paragraph 99) without an accelerator, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that their use would not be required.
On page 8, the applicant argues that Tilbrook in view of Kanayama do not teach the use of 4,4’-methylenebis(2,6-xylidine) in amounts of 50% or greater with respect to the total amount of amine present. The examiner disagrees, as Kanayama teaches it as the only amine curing agent and that Tilbrook similarly allows for the use of single amine curing agents, which would meet the requirement. Additionally, as Tilbrook teaches that the curing agent is chosen based upon the desired curing time and temperature as noted in the rejection and further that Tilbrook teaches the use of combinations of curing agents and includes some of the applicant’s preferred options, one of ordinary skill in the art is taught by Tilbrook to adjust the composition according to the desired curing parameters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tilbrook (20080081170) teaches compositions broadly similar to those of the instant application and notes the use of any curing agent known in the art. Similarly, Wang (20190233601) teaches compositions like those of the instant application for use in aerospace composites using any curing agent known to be used in this context.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights