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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 21-22, and 26, in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawai et al (JP 2013/112694 A, using the machine translation for the citations below), as evidenced by Hong et al ("On-demand and fast recyclable bio-epoxy", Journal of Industrial and Engineering I Chemistry 117 (2023) 490-499).
Regarding Claims 1-2: Kawai teaches an epoxy compound obtained by reacting a phenol compound with an epihalohydrin (para. 0021), wherein the phenol compound is a product of an aldol condensation reaction (para. 0047) of vanillin (para. 0046) and 4-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone (para. 0030). Hong teaches that the aldol condensation and subsequent epoxidation of vanillin and 4-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone/raspberry ketone results in a degradable epoxy compound reading on instant formula 3 and formula 7.
Regarding Claims 21-22: Kawai teaches a composition comprising the epoxy compound and a curing agent (para. 0021), wherein the curing agent is selected from isophorone diamine, diaminodiphenyl sulfone or dicyandiamide (para. 0069)
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al (JP 2013/112694 A, using the machine translation for the citations below), as evidenced by Hong et al ("On-demand and fast recyclable bio-epoxy", Journal of Industrial and Engineering I Chemistry 117 (2023) 490-499), in view of Crouch et al (The Aldol Addition and Condensation: The Effect of Conditions of Reaction Pathway, March 2007, Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 84 No. 3, p.475-476).
Kawai and Hong teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Kawai and Hong are silent to the structure of instant formula 8.
Crouch teaches that performing aldol reactions at room temperature favors the aldol addition product, which is a β-hydroxy ketone, rather than the condensation product (p.475, Scheme I), and that the reaction product is also pH-dependent (p.476, col. 1, para. 4, role of base strength). Crouch further teaches that the addition product is an isolatable intermediate in the condensation reaction (p.476, col. 1, para. 5). Crouch and Kawai are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely aldol reactions.
Kawai teaches performing the aldol reaction at temperatures as low as 10°C (para. 0051), and that the catalyst may be acidic or basic, and that examples of the basic catalyst include NaOH and Na2CO3 (para. 0048-49). One of ordinary skill in the art could envision setting the reaction conditions to room temperature and choosing a slightly weaker basic catalyst such as Na2CO3, which would result in the compound represented by instant formula 8.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al (JP 2013/112694 A, using the machine translation for the citations below), as evidenced by Hong et al ("On-demand and fast recyclable bio-epoxy", Journal of Industrial and Engineering I Chemistry 117 (2023) 490-499), in view of Singh et al (US 2021/0363288 A1).
Kawai and Hong teach the compound of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Kawai is silent to a wind blade comprising the compound.
Singh teaches a fiber-reinforced epoxy composition that is used in wind turbine blades (para. 0363). Singh and Kawai are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely epoxy compositions.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Selecting the epoxy compound of Kawai, especially when reinforced with fibers (para. 0078), for use in a wind turbine blade would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because of its art-recognized suitability for that purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (JP 2015/059186 A) teaches an epoxy compound reading on instant claim 1.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights