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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortimer (US 20120146256) in view of Shafi (US 20080197526).
As to claims 1 and 19, Mortimer teaches a method for manufacturing a composite part that could be used as an aeronautical composite part.
Mortimer teaches a step (a) of mixing resin (inherently polymerizable) and curing agent ([0024], pot) and heating to a dissolving temperature ([0013], dissolution) to obtain complete dissolution of the curing agent ([0027], less than 1% not completely dissolved includes 0%).
Mortimer teaches a step (b) of cooling the mixture to a temperature ([0013], “cooled”). Although Mortimer does not specifically teach that the temperature is a “safety” temperature sufficient to “prevent at least one exothermic reaction”, Mortimer does teach cooling to a temperature 10-50 C below the dissolution temperature ([0028]) which would arrive at a safety temperature which prevents an exothermic reaction.
Mortimer teaches a step (c) of injecting the mixture into a mold ([0002]) comprising a fibrous preform ([0033]) inherently at an injection temperature.
Mortimer does not specifically teach (in step (c)) injecting the mixture at an injection temperature equal to or higher than the dissolution temperature.
Shafi teaches that it is known to provide an epoxy resin and hardener mixture ([0020]) which are mixed at elevated temperature and injected into the mold at any higher temperature up to the point where the reaction mixture becomes highly viscous or gels. Shafi further teaches that there is little advantage in using a temperature of greater than 160 C ([0019]), which suggests a temperature range up to and including 160 C. This temperature would be at or above the range of epoxy dissolution temperatures taught by Mortimer (Mortimer, claim 7, 140-170 C; claim 2, epoxy). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this injection temperature from Shafi into Mortimer motivated by the decrease in viscosity that the Shafi injection temperature would provide and its benefit of allowing easy flow around and between the reinforcing fibers. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that Mortimer already uses epoxy and hardener and Shafi teaches a technique specifically for epoxy and hardener.
As to claims 2-4, 15, and 17, in the rejection of claim 1 above, Mortimer teaches a dissolution temperature (Mortimer, claim 7, 140-170 C) that overlaps with the claimed range, and Shafi teaches an injection temperature (up to 160 C) that overlaps with the claimed range. In light of this similarity/overlap the same level of crosslinking would be obvious. As to claim 5, Mortimer teaches mixing and heating (see rejection of claim 1), but does not specifically teach heating during mixing and/or cooling. At most, this limitation constitutes a recitation of a specific order of steps (mixing compared to heating and/or cooling) where Mortimer already teaches mixing and heating. Even if there is a distinction in the order of steps, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to rearrange or combine the mixing with heating and cooling in order to help arrive at a uniform temperature in the mixture. As to claims 6 and 10, Mortimer teaches that the dwell-temperature (equivalent to the safety temperature) “should be as low as possible in order to prolong the processing window.” This suggestion encompasses a temperature range with no lower limit and would therefore meet the claimed safety temperature less than 80 C and storage temperature of 0 C or higher. As to claims 7 and 8, although Mortimer does not specifically teach a particular temperature reduction rate to the safety temperature (or dwell-temperature in Mortimer), since the purpose of cooling in Mortimer is to prevent further reaction and increasing viscosity by cooling below the reaction temperature, one would have found it obvious to cool to the dwell-temperature at the highest possible rate. One would have arrived at the claimed temperature reduction rate (1 minute or 10 seconds) by optimizing the temperature treatment in order to avoid further reaction. Mortimer already teaches a dissolution temperature within the claimed range (Mortimer, claim 7, 140-170 C). As to claim 16, Mortimer teaches that that the uncured resin is heated to the dissolution temperature and then cooled ([0013]) and that premature gelling of the resin is to be avoided ([0008]). While Mortimer does not specifically teach how quickly the cooling occurs or how long is required to cool the mixture from the dissolution temperature to 120 C, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cooling rate (and therefore the cooling time) would be a result effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize/minimize the cooling time in order to avoid premature gelling of the resin during cooling from the dissolution temperature to 120 C.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortimer (US 20120146256) in view of Shafi (US 20080197526), and further in view of Atkins (US 4,732,962). Mortimer and Shafi teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 9, Mortimer is silent to performing steps (a), (b), and/or (c) under vacuum.
Atkins teaches mixing a suitable amount of epoxy and curing agent with a mixing blade under vacuum to degas any air bubbles in the mixing process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to filing to incorporate the Atkins vacuum into the modified Mortimer process as an improvement for, or motivated by, removing air bubbles from the epoxy and avoiding introducing bubbles/voids into the final article. There is a reasonable expectation of success since Mortimer teaches mixing an epoxy and Atkins provides a step specifically for improving epoxy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Beginning at Mortimer, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to store at this specific temperature range between steps b) and c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments appear to be on the grounds that Mortimer’s “dwell-temperature” is actually the temperature occurring in the mold, and that this temperature occurs after injection. On page 7 of the response, Applicant argues that Mortimer therefore does not teach cooling the mixture to a safety temperature to prevent at least one exothermic reaction before injection, and that Mortimer further teaches that the resin is not heated prior to injection because the temperature at which the resin mixture is cooled is suitable for injection. On page 8, Applicant argues that this teaches away from an injection temperature equal or higher than the dissolution temperature.
The Examiner notes Applicant’s argument that “dwell-temperature” occurs in the mold, however, it should be noted that the annotated Mortimer figure provided in Applicant’s arguments shows that that the “cooling” temperature and “dwell-temperature” are the same. The Examiner believes that the ordinary artisan would have recognized the result-effective characteristic of temperature on the Mortimer resin would be the same regardless of whether that temperature occurred inside or outside the mold. Nevertheless, the rejection primarily relied on the cooling step and cooling temperature, rather than the dwell temperature. If Applicant believes that Mortimer’s cooling 10-50 C below the dissolution temperature does not actually prevent at least one exothermic reaction as claimed, then a declaration with evidence may be the best route to overcome the pending rejection.
Additionally, while Mortimer does show that a cooling temperature and injection temperature that are the same (as illustrated in the annotated figure), the ordinary artisan would be aware (from the teaching of Shafi) that other resin injection temperatures could be used while still avoiding premature gelling, consistent with the objective of Mortimer. One having knowledge of Shafi would recognize that the benefit of heating the resin to 160 C is that this elevated injection temperature achieves a lower viscosity that would offset reaction during the injection process, but the resin retains the ability to flow around and between filaments of a preform and still achieves a shorter demold time ([0028]). Compare the 100 minute cure time disclosed by Mortimer (Fig. 1, item 26) to the 5-10 minute cure times achieved by Shafi ([0015]). Therefore, the Examiner believes that despite the fact that Mortimer teaches one set of suitable conditions which avoids premature gelling, Shafi shows that higher resin temperatures can be successfully used without premature gelling to significantly decrease the cure time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights