DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. (JP 2010-150310) using the English language machine translation for the citations below.
Regarding claims 1-3: Miyoshi et al. teaches a curing agent comprising an alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane such as 3,3’-diisopropyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane (para. 23), which has an alkyl group at two ortho positions of an amino group and is a solid at room temperature/curing agent (A), an aromatic diamine that is liquid at 25 °C/curing agent (B) (para. 11), and a curing agent that has no substituent at an ortho position of an amine group and is an aromatic polyamine/curing agent (C)
PNG
media_image1.png
116
120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(pg. 3 of the Japanese document where R5-R8 can be hydrogen, para. 15). When R5-R8 is hydrogen, this compound is p-phenylenediamine, which is a solid at room temperature. Miyoshi et al. teaches 40-80 parts of the alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane/curing agent (A) per 100 parts of the total curing agent (para. 32), and further that a mixture of the aromatic curing agents are preferred (para. 26). Miyoshi et al. teaches using a mixture of the curing agents is preferred and that the claimed curing agent (A) is in an amount of 40-80 parts by weight per 100 parts of the total curing agent mixture, which must include also the liquid curing agent, and that a solid aromatic diamine curing agent such as 4,4’-daminodiphenylmethane can also be present, indicated the presence of claimed curing agent (C). Therefore, the specific teaching of the presence of curing agents (A), (B), and (C) with the overlapping amount of curing agent (A) teaches an overlapping ratio of A:B and an amount of (C). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amounts of curing agents and would have been motivated to do so since Miyoshi et al. teaches these curing agents can be present in the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 4: Miyoshi et al. teaches 4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane (para. 28), which has a melting point of 89 ° C.
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Miyoshi et al. teaches a curing agent comprising an alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane such as 3,3’-diisopropyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane (para. 23), which is an aromatic diamine and a derivative of 4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane.
Regarding claim 7: Miyoshi et al. teaches 4,4’-diaminodiphenylsulfone as the liquid diamine (para. 28), which is a 4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane derivative.
Regarding claim 8: Miyoshi et al. teaches the hardening agent is liquid at 25 °C (para. 32), which is below the claimed range, meaning that it will not be a solid above this temperature. While the property of remaining liquid after raising to a temperature of 200 °C and then lowering to 25 °C and standing at 25 °C for 1 week is not specifically disclosed, mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II).
Regarding claim 9: Miyoshi et al. teaches an epoxy resin composition comprising the curing agent composition (para. 1).
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 12: Miyoshi et al. teaches an epoxy composition comprising a curing agent comprising an alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane such as 3,3’-diisopropyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane (para. 23), which has an alkyl group at two ortho positions of an amino group and is a solid at room temperature/curing agent (A), an aromatic diamine that is liquid at 25 °C/curing agent (B) (para. 11), and a curing agent that has no substituent at an ortho position of an amine group and is an aromatic polyamine/curing agent (C)
PNG
media_image1.png
116
120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(pg. 3 of the Japanese document where R5-R8 can be hydrogen, para. 15). When R5-R8 is hydrogen, this compound is p-phenylenediamine, which is a solid at room temperature. Miyoshi et al. also teaches an epoxy resin D having 4 or more glycidyl groups/N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane (para. 21), which has the structure of the chemical formula in claim 11 with X represented by -CH2- and R1 to R4 being hydrogen. Miyoshi et al. also teaches an epoxy resin having 2 or 3 glycidyl groups, such as diglycidyl ethers and triglycidyl amines (para. 19). Miyoshi et al. further teaches resin particles (para. 35). Miyoshi et al. teaches 40-80 parts of the alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane/curing agent (A) per 100 parts of the total curing agent (para. 32), and further that a mixture of the aromatic curing agents are preferred (para. 26). Miyoshi et al. teaches using a mixture of the curing agents is preferred and that the claimed curing agent (A) is in an amount of 40-80 parts by weight per 100 parts of the total curing agent mixture, which must include also the liquid curing agent, and that a solid aromatic diamine curing agent such as 4,4’-daminodiphenylmethane can also be present, indicated the presence of claimed curing agent (C). Therefore, the specific teaching of the presence of curing agents (A), (B), and (C) with the overlapping amount of curing agent (A) teaches an overlapping ratio of A:B and an amount of (C). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amounts of curing agents and would have been motivated to do so since Miyoshi et al. teaches these curing agents can be present in the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 13: Miyoshi et al. teaches 40 parts or more per 100 parts of the total epoxy resin of an aromatic epoxy resin having three or more epoxy groups (para. 20). A tetraglycidyl epoxy overlaps with the “three or more epoxy groups”. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14: Miyoshi et al. teaches the triglycidyl epoxy can be N,N,O-triglycidyl-p-aminophenol (para. 19).
Regarding claim 15: Miyoshi et al. teaches the particles have an average particle size of 1-200 nm (para. 38), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16: Miyoshi et al. teaches the ratio of epoxy groups to the active hydrogens is 0.7 to 1.3 (para. 34).
Regarding claims 17 and 18: While Miyoshi et al. may not explicitly teach the claimed properties, mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II). Miyoshi et al. teaches the claimed components are present in the composition. Therefore, it is implicit that the composition would have the same properties.
Regarding claim 19: Miyoshi et al. teaches a cured product (para. 34).
Regarding claim 20: Miyoshi et al. teaches a fiber-reinforced composite material comprising a resin cured product and a reinforcing fiber (para. 1, 34).
Regarding claim 21: Miyoshi et al. teaches carbon fiber (para. 16).
Regarding claim 22: Miyoshi et al. teaches a fiber-reinforced composite material comprising a resin cured product and a reinforcing fiber (para. 1, 34).
Regarding claim 23: Miyoshi et al. teaches impregnating the fiber with the composition in a mold and then heat curing it (para. 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant’s argument that the composition of Miyoshi et al. does not require (A), (B), and (C), and the composition only includes two components and allows for the inclusion of a third component, is not persuasive. A reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component (MPEP 2123 I).
B) Applicant’s argument that Miyoshi et al. does not teach the amounts of the curing agents is not persuasive. Miyoshi et al. teaches 40-80 parts of the alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane/curing agent (A) per 100 parts of the total curing agent (para. 32), and further that a mixture of the aromatic curing agents, selected from a list that includes all of the claimed curing agents, is preferred (para. 26). Since Miyoshi et al. teaches the inclusion or optional inclusion of (A), (B), and (C), there can be greater than zero parts for each of (A), (B), and (C), and since the amount limitations of the claims require at least 1 part of each of (A), (B), and (C), the disclosed amounts and claimed amounts overlap.
C) The double patenting rejection is removed due to the amendment.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
