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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “general accelerator: 0.1-3 parts, latent accelerator: 0.1-3 parts.” The claim should instead read “general accelerator: 0.1-3 parts, and latent accelerator: 0.1-3 parts.”
Claim 2 recites “viscosity of 2000-5000.” The claim should instead read “viscosity of 2,000-5,000 mPa∙s.”
Claim 3 recites “viscosity of 2000-5000.” The claim should instead read “viscosity of 10,000-18,000 mPa∙s.”
Claim 4 recites “one or a combination of more of BYK-310, TEGO KL245, KYC-643 and BYK-W9010”. The claim should instead read “one or a combination of more of BYK-310, TEGO KL245, KYC-643, and BYK-W9010”.
Claim 5 recites “methyl hexahydrophthalic anhydride and methyl nadic anhydride.” The claim should instead read “methyl hexahydrophthalic anhydride, and methyl nadic anhydride.”
Claim 6 recites “carboxylated-terminated acrylonitrile rubber and polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether.” The claim should instead read “carboxylated-terminated acrylonitrile rubber, and polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether.”
Claim 7 recites “benzyldimethylamine and DMP-30.” The claim should instead read “benzyldimethylamine, and DMP-30.”
Claim 8 recites “organic acylhydrazine and diaminomaleonitrile.”. The claim should instead read “organic acylhydrazine, and diaminomaleonitrile.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 7 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.
Claim 4 contains the trademarks/trade names BYK-310, TEGO KL245, KYC-643, BYK-W9010, INT-1890M, MR-3908. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the wetting dispersant and internal mold discharging agent and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name DMP-30. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the general accelerator and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
An epoxy resin compound for pultrusion of composites, wherein the epoxy resin compound is composed of a component A and a component B at a weight ratio of 100: (80-120);
the component A is composed of the following raw materials in parts by weight:
bisphenol A epoxy resin: 25-75 parts,
low viscosity epoxy resin: 25-75 parts,
wetting dispersant: 1-20 parts,
defoamer: 0.01-1 part,
internal mold discharging agent: 1-10 parts,
the component B is composed of the following raw materials in parts by weight:
liquid anhydride: 50-100 parts,
toughening agent: 1-10 parts,
general accelerator: 0.1-3 parts,
latent accelerator: 0.1-3 parts.
Claim Interpretation
The term “low viscosity epoxy resin” is interpreted as an epoxy resin having a viscosity of 2,000 to 5,000 mPa∙s in view of instant specification [0017].
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 106987094) in view of Hurley et al. (US 20060030682 A2) and Wang et al. (CN114045007)
The examiner refers to the English translation of Zhang et al. and Wang et al. provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. teach in Example 1 an epoxy resin compound comprising 0-10 parts of bisphenol A epoxy resin, 85-95 parts of bisphenol F, 0 to 5 parts of toughening agent, 5-7 parts of latent curing agent, and 1-2 parts by weight of accelerator were mixed together, thereby overlapping the amounts of toughening agent, general accelerator, and latent accelerator but lying outside the claimed range of bisphenol A epoxy resin and low viscosity epoxy resin.
Hurley et al. teach a composition comprising epoxy, wherein the epoxy is 50% bisphenol F epoxy and 50% bisphenol A epoxy [0023-0030]. Hurley et al. teach the bisphenol A epoxy resin is included to increase the glass transition temperature and raise the viscosity of the composition while bisphenol F is used to decrease the viscosity [0023]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art must balance the benefits of the bisphenol A epoxy (higher glass transition temperature) with the disadvantages (higher viscostiy). The amount of bisphenol A epoxy resin and bisphenol F epoxy resin, would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amounts cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of bisphenol A epoxy resin and bisphenol F epoxy resin of Zhang et al. , as modified by Hurley et al., to reach the desired glass transition temperature balanced by viscosity since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Zhang et al. is silent on the composition comprising a wetting dispersant, defoamer, internal mold discharging agent, and liquid anhydride.
Hurley et al. teach a wetting agent is present in an amount of 0.005 to 2.0 weight percent of the composition [0041], a defoamer is present in an amount of 0.05 to 0.5 weight percent of the composition [0042], and a liquid anhydride is present in about 30 to 60 weight percent of the composition [0033], thereby overlapping the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a wetting agent, defoamer, and liquid anhydride in the amount taught by Hurley et al. with the composition of Zhang et al. because they are all well known additives for epoxy.
Hurley et al. is also silent on an internal mold discharging agent.
Wang et al. teach an epoxy composite resin comprising 0.5-15 parts by weight of internal release agent (claim 1), thereby overlapping the claimed range. Zhang et al. is also concerned with an epoxy composition (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an internal release agent in the amount taught by Wang et al. in the composition of Zhang et al. because internal release agents are well known additives for epoxy.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. teach the bisphenol F epoxy resin has an epoxy equivalent of 50-1000 g/mol and a viscosity of 200 cPs-10,000 cPs [0014], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select the range taught by Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. teach the bisphenol A epoxy resin has an epoxy equivalent of 50-1000 g/mol and a viscosity of 200 cPs-5000 cPs [0015], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select the range taught by Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 4, Hurley et al. teach a wetting dispersant and Wang et al. teach an internal mold discharging agent as rejected above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. is silent on the liquid anhydride as recited in the instant claim.
Hurley et al. teach an anhydride compound such as methylhexhydrophthalic anhydride [0032], thereby reading on the instant claim. Hurley et al. offer the motivation that the anhydride reacts with epoxy to form a crosslinked thermosetting polymer [0032]. Zhang et al. is also interested in a crosslinked product [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the methylhexhydrophthalic anhydride of Hurley et al. with the resin composition of Zhang et al. since both are related to crosslinked epoxy products.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. is silent on the general accelerator used in Example 1.
Wang et al. teach a curing agent is 2-ethyl-4-methylimidazolium [0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curing agent of Wang et al. with the composition of Zhang since 2-ethyl-4-methylimidazolium is a well known curing agent for epoxy resins.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. is silent on the latent accelerator used in Example 1.
However, Zhang et al. teach the latent accelerator includes diaminomaleonitrile [0036], thereby reading on the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add diaminomaleonitrile as the latent accelerator as taught by Zhang et al.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Zhang et al. teach the epoxy resin is formed by mixing bisphenol F epoxy resin, bisphenol A epoxy resin, and a toughening agent and heating to 80°C-90°C. Afterwards Zhang et al. teach the general accelerator and latent accelerator are mixed together with component A [0027-0039].
Zhang et al. and the instant claim differ in that the order Zhang et al. teach all components are mixed together to form the compound.
However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the process steps set forth in Example 1 of Zhang et al. in the order recited in claim 2.
Zhang et al. is silent on adding a wetting dispersant, defoamer, internal mold discharging agent, and liquid anhydride.
However, Hurley et al. teach a wetting dispersant, defoamer, internal mold discharging agent, and liquid anhydride are common additives for epoxy resin as seen in the rejection for claim 1 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the wetting dispersant, defoamer, internal mold discharging agent, and liquid anhydride
Zhang et al. is silent on the time to stir as recited in Step S2-2 of instant claim 9 and the stirring speed of instant claim 10.
However, Zhang et al. teach the mixture is stirred until there is no powder present [0030]. Stirring speed and time are controlled in order to produce a homogenous mixture. If epoxy resin isn’t mixed thoroughly, the components in the final product are unevenly distributed and result in poor physical properties. Therefore, the stirring time and speed are considered result effective variables. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount mixing time and stirring speed cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of SBS amount mixing time and stirring speed of Zhang et al. to reach the desired consistency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 106987094) in view of Hurley et al. (US 20060030682 A2) and Wang et al. (CN114045007) in further view of Chen et al. (CN 106432691).
The epoxy resin compound of claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
The examiner refers to the English translation of Chen et al. provided in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. is silent on the toughening agent used in Example 1.
Chen et al. teach a curing agent for an epoxy resin curing system comprising a toughening agent that is a polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether (claim 7 and [0014]), thereby reading on the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the toughening agent of Chen et al. with the composition of Zhang et al. since polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether is a well known toughening agent for epoxy compounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763