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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
1. Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 recites “the nonwoven form of the binder applied to the surface of the reinforcing fiber substrate”. However, parent claim 7 already recites that the reinforcing fiber substrate is a preform bonded by a nonwoven form of binder. Therefore, the reinforcing fiber substrate itself includes the nonwoven form of the binder, and it is unclear what Applicant intends by the language that the binder is applied to the reinforcing fiber substrate. For example, does Applicant actually intend that the binder is applied to the surface of the preform or does Applicant intend the binder applied to a reinforcing fiber substrate that already includes the binder? Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as “wherein the amount of the nonwoven form of the binder applied to the surface of the preform is” consistent with Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0092.
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.
2. 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 bonded by a polyamide binder (claim 12) having a melting temperature of 176 ºC (0094) that is applied to both surfaces of the preform 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.
Baidak et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0184376) is cited for its teaching of the use of M-CDEA and M-DIPA as curing agents for epoxy resin compositions (0085 and 0099).
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
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/
February 6, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights