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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether the applicant intends the selection of the listed components to be further limiting. The applicant is required to review the claim language to address this ambiguity.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilbrook (US 20110262630) in view of Kanayama (JPS 6198727).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 11, 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 claims 11 and 20.
Regarding Claim 3,
Tilbrook in view of Kanayama teaches the combination of amine curing agents including the required 4,4’-methylenebis(2,6-xylidine). While Tilbrook is silent on the relative amounts of curing agents when used in combination, Tilbrook does teach that these curing agents are selected to provide curing at suitable temperatures (Paragraph 105) and further that the amount of curing agent used would be determined through well-established routine experimentation (Paragraph 105). The ordinarily skilled artisan would note the improved pot life and other characteristics as taught by Kanayama as described above in regard to claim 1 would be advantageous in situations such as aircraft parts and would be motivated to adjust the relative amounts of curing agent in order to obtain the desired cured composition characteristics as explicitly mentioned by Tilbrook. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have set the ratio between curing agents to be any ratio that was determined to be fit for purpose.
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 5 and 6,
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 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 Claims 15 and 16,
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), but does note in the examples a curing time of 120 minutes at a temperature of 180 °C (Paragraphs 154, 155), meeting the requirements of claim 15. 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. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.II.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tilbrook (US 7,754,322) teaches the use of epoxy resin compositions that are useful in forming prepregs to be cured into composite materials that utilizes similar mixtures of epoxy resins and other components and is cured using methods broadly similar to those of the instant application. Additionally, Boyle (EP 3129428) teaches epoxy resin compositions that are of similar composition cured in a similar fashion for use in composite materials.
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