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 Application
Claims 1-11 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the selection of both M-DIPA and M-CDEA. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that Hondo specifically teaches that both M-DIPA and M-CDEA can be used as additional curing agents either individually or in combination (0039-0040). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that based on this teaching it would have been obvious to try different combinations of curing agents to arrive at an optimal combination, thereby arriving at the claimed combination of M-DIPA and M-CDEA.
Applicant argues that there are unexpected results from the specific combination of M-DIPA and M-CDEA. However, Applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims. In particular, Applicant’s evidence does not support unexpected results for the entire scope of epoxy resin compositions encompassed by the claims. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to unexpected results are moot.
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 4 and 5, that the properties would not be inherent in Hondo’s products as the process of manufacture and compositions are different. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that the composition that Hondo makes obvious is identical to the composition of claim 1 and would be expected to have identical properties.
Finally, Applicant argues that Examiner has not shown that gelation temperature is a result-effective variable. However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that control of gelation temperature will necessarily affect the amount of energy necessary for performing the process. Namely, a lower gelation temperature will allow for less energy to be applied for curing and a lower gelation temperature will allow for heat sensitive substrates to be used, for example. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that gelation temperature is a result-effective variable and it would be optimized to arrive at the claimed ranges through routine optimization. Therefore, the rejections of record are maintained as presented below.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hondo et al. (WO 2020/008847, of which reference is made to U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0261744 as an English equivalent).
I. Regarding claims 1-3, Hondo teaches an epoxy resin composition for fiber-reinforced composite material (abstract) comprising: tetraglycidyl diaminodiphenylmethane in an amount of 70-90% mass of the total epoxy resin components (claim 1); a bisphenol F-type resin epoxy in an amount of 10-30% mass of the total epoxy resin components (claim 1); a curing agent including 4,4’-methylenebis(2-isopropryl-6-methylaniline) (claim 1); and core-shell rubber particles having a volume average diameter of 50-300 nm and having epoxy groups in the shell (claim 4). Hondo fails to teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the epoxy resin composition includes 4,4’-methylenebis(3-chloro-2,6-diethylaniline), also known as M-CDEA, and 4,4’-methylenebis(3,3’,5,5’-tetraisopropylaniline), also known as M-DIPA (see Applicant’s specification at 0034).
However, Hondo does teach that the epoxy resin composition can include additional curing agents (0037). Hondo further teaches that those additional curing agents can include M-CDEA and M-DIPA (0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hondo’s composition by including 4,4’-methylenebis(3-chloro-2,6-diethylaniline) (M-CDEA) and 4,4’-methylenebis(3,3’,5,5’-tetraisopropylaniline (M-DIPA) as additional curing agents. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Hondo specifically teaches that these additional curing agents can be included for providing improved heat resistance and mechanical properties (0038-0039).
II. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hondo makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, as Hondo makes obvious an identical composition, the Examiner contends that Hondo’s composition would inherently have the properties of viscosity and gelation temperature as claimed. Alternatively, gelation temperature and viscosity are result-effective variables. Gelation temperature will affect the amount of energy needed for preparing the product and will also dictate what preforms the composition can be applied to as a higher gelation temperature would require a heat sensitive substrate for use. Further, the viscosity will alter the impregnation property of the epoxy resin (see Hondo at 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges for viscosity and gelation temperature through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claims 6-10, Hondo makes obvious the epoxy resin composition (see above). Hondo additionally teaches a fiber-reinforced composite material comprising a cured product of the epoxy resin composition and a reinforcing fiber substrate (claim 10), wherein the substrate is a preform (formed by stacking a plurality of sheets of reinforcing fiber substrate, see 0064) bonded by a polyamide binder (claim 12) having a melting temperature of 176 ºC (0094) that is applied to both surfaces of the sheets in an amount of 0.5-15 g/m2 (0063, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Hondo further teaches that the reinforcing fiber substrate is a carbon fiber (claim 11). Therefore, Hondo also makes obvious claims 6-10.
IV. Regarding claim 11, Hondo makes obvious the epoxy resin composition (see above). Hondo additionally teaches a method for producing a fiber-reinforced composite (claim 7) comprising: injecting the epoxy resin composition heated to a temperature of 50-120 ºC into a reinforcing fiber substrate placed in a mold heated to a temperature of 90-180 ºC (claim 7); impregnating the substrate with the epoxy resin (claim 7); and curing the epoxy resin composition in the mold (claim 7). Therefore, Hondo also makes obvious claim 11.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellinger et al. (EP 2426157) cited for teaching the use of a combination of M-CDEA and M-DIPA (Table 6) for curing epoxy resins to optimize viscosity, gel time and Tg onset (Table 6).
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
May 20, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights