DETAILED ACTION 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-23 are 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. Reference characters should be in parentheses for clarity. It is suggested to amend “a curing agent A, a curing agent B, and a curing agent C”, for example, to “a curing agent (A), a curing agent (B), and a curing agent (C)” and “epoxy resin D, an epoxy resin E, and resin particles F” to “epoxy resin (D), an epoxy resin (E), and resin particles (F)”. The parentheses in claim 11 (page 81 lines 15-20), render the claim indefinite and must be removed. It is unclear if the text within the parentheses is included in the claim and further limits the subject matter of the claim, or whether it is an aside to the claim and is not further limiting. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken that the text within the parentheses further limits the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Further, claims are to be only one sentence in length. Claim 11 is two sentences . It is suggested to delete the period after “chemical formula” and un-capitalize “In”. The parentheses in claim 17 (page 83 lines 3-5) render the claim indefinite and must be removed. It is unclear if the text within the parentheses is included in the claim and further limits the subject matter of the claim, or whether it is an aside to the claim and is not further limiting. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken that the text within the parentheses further limits the claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 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 claim s 1 and 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, an aromatic diamine that is liquid at 25 °C (para. 11), and a curing agent that has no substituent at an ortho position of an amine group and is an aromatic polyamine (pg. 3 of the Japanese document where R 5 -R 8 can be hydrogen (para. 15). While other embodiments not reading on the claims are also disclosed in Miyoshi et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use overlapping amine curing agents of Miyoshi et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Miyoshi et al. teaches these curing agents are acceptable to achieve the disclosed invention. Regarding claim 2: Miyoshi et al. teaches 40-80 parts of the alkyl-substituted diaminodiphenylmethane curing agent per 100 parts of the total curing agent (para. 32), and further that a mixture of the aromatic curing agents are preferred (para. 26). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the amounts of the curing agents and would have been motivated to do so since Miyoshi et al. teaches the curing agent can remain liquid for a longer period due to the lowering of the melting point by eutectic formation, making it even more suitable for use in methods for producing fiber-reinforced composite materials (para. 26). Regarding claim 4: Miyoshi et al. teaches 4,4’-diaminodiphenylmethane (para. 28), which has a melting point of 89 ° C. Regarding claim s 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 claim s 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, an aromatic diamine that is liquid at 25 °C (para. 11), and a curing agent that has no substituent at an ortho position of an amine group and is an aromatic polyamine (pg. 3 of the Japanese document where R 5 -R 8 can be hydrogen (para. 15). 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 -CH 2 - and R 1 to R 4 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). While other embodiments not reading on the claims are also disclosed in Miyoshi et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use overlapping amine curing agents of Miyoshi et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Miyoshi et al. teaches these curing agents are acceptable to achieve 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 2 2 : 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). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/681,678 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the copending application and the instant application require a fiber reinforced composite material comprising a cured product of a reinforcing fiber base and the epoxy resin curing composition of instant claim 10, which claim 1 of the copending overlaps. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Megan McCulley whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3292 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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