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 Interpretation
Claim 14 cites “the first adhesive comprises a conventional resin”. While the term ‘conventional resin’ is very broad as it can have numerous meanings, the broadness of a term does not necessarily lead to indefiniteness. See MPEP 2173.04.
It is understood by the Examiner from the instant specification that an adhesive’s ‘conventional resin’ is a conventional ratio (CR) resin [0064], which would have a stoichiometric offset (r value) ranging from about 0.7 to about 1.0 [0065, 0074].
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: non-matching claim language and grammatical error.
In claim 10, the phrase “the first faying surface of the first composite substrate” lacks antecedent basis, as it is dependent to claim 1 which cites ‘a faying surface’ on the first composite substrate. As the first composite substrate is understood to have a single faying surface, the term ‘first’ can be removed from claim 10 to resolve this issue.
In claim 19, line 2 of step (b) should end with a semicolon; and line 2 of step (c) should be amended to “wherein the second”.
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 18 & 19 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 18 recites the limitation “the third faying surface” in line 1 of step (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claim 18 does not cite a ‘first’, ‘second’, or ‘third’ faying surface prior to step (c).
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret ‘the third faying surface of the first stack’ as the exposed surface of the first stack in step (c), which is the exposed outer ‘second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer’ surface, which is atop the ‘first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer’, which is atop the ‘first substrate’.
Claim 19, step (a), cites that the first composite substrate comprises ‘a faying surface’ and ‘a second faying surface’. Step (a) is understood to cite the substrate and first curable resin as an integrated unit, because the first composite substrate is comprised of the substrate and first curable resin and there is no joining process cited. It is unclear how the substrate has ‘a faying surface’ when it is covered by the first curable resin, which has ‘a second faying surface’. This leads to indefiniteness as it is understood by the Examiner that the integrated ‘first composite substrate’ should only comprise one faying surface.
The last phrase of claim 19, step (a), “wherein the first composite substrate is cured” also leads to indefiniteness. Does this mean the substrate has already been cured, or is it cured at the end of step (a)? Is the resin partially cured, or is it fully cured, which should have cross-linked the hardener reactive groups?
For claim 19, for the sake of compact prosecution, ‘a faying surface’ is interpreted as the substrate surface before the first curable resin is applied to form a first composite substrate. The phrase “the first composite substrate is cured” will be examined as being partially cured. This would allow the first curable resin (comprising the first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer, stoichiometrically offset with hardener reactive groups) to chemically interact with ‘the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer, stoichiometrically offset with hardener groups’ during their contact and curing steps (d) & (e).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmieri (US20170368812A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
19. A method for producing a composite comprising: (a) providing a first composite substrate, wherein the first composite substrate comprises a substrate with a faying surface comprising a first curable resin comprising a first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer, wherein the first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is stoichiometrically offset with hardener reactive groups, wherein the first curable resin has a second faying surface, and wherein the first composite substrate is cured; (b) providing a second composite substrate, wherein the second composite substrate comprises a substrate comprising a first faying surface (c) applying a second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer to the second faying surface of the first composite substrate, wherein second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is stoichiometrically offset with hardener groups to produce a first stack, and wherein the molar ratio of the hardener reactive groups of the first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer and the hardener groups of the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is from about 0.6 to about 1.2 after cure; (d) coupling the first stack with the second composite substrate, wherein the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is in contact with the first faying surface of the second composite substrate to produce a second stack; and (e) curing the second stack to produce the composite.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of Palmieri teaches a method for producing a composite comprising: (a) providing a first composite substrate (Fig. 7, item 50; [0081]), wherein the first composite substrate comprises a substrate (Fig. 7, items 54 & 56 on left side) with a faying surface comprising a first curable resin comprising a first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer (Fig. 7, item 58), wherein the first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer which can have a stoichiometrically offset amine to epoxide molar ratio of amine-rich hardener reactive groups [0081, 0083], wherein the first curable resin has a second faying surface, and wherein the first composite substrate is cured [0081]; (b) providing a second composite substrate (Fig. 7, item 72; [0081]), wherein the second composite substrate comprises a substrate (Fig. 7, items 54 & 56 on right side) comprising a first faying surface.
Palmieri teaches a second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer (Fig. 7, item 76) which can have a stoichiometrically offset amine to epoxide molar ratio of epoxide-rich hardening resin groups [0081, 0083].
Palmieri teaches the molar ratio of the amine-rich hardener reactive groups of the first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer and the epoxide-rich hardener groups of the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer should be complimentary to each other [0099], with an example providing the molar ratios of the amine-rich polymer at r=0.25 and the epoxide-rich polymer at r=4 [0099]. From this, Palmieri prima facie obviously teaches that after curing, the molar ratio of the combined complimentary molar ratio polymers should be around 1.0, which lies within the claimed range of about 0.6 to about 1.2 after cure.
Palmieri is silent on (c) applying the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer to the second faying surface of the first composite substrate to produce a first stack.
Instead, Palmieri teaches applying the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer (Fig. 7, item 76) to the faying surface of the second composite substrate [0081].
However, as this is an application step only and not a curing step, and because Palmieri and the instant claim both teach the coupling of the two substrates and two stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymers in the same order in a subsequent step, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try applying the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer to the second substrate faying surface, taught by Palmieri; as Palmieri and instant claim 19 would form an identically coupled stack, ready for curing to form a finished composite.
Palmieri teaches (d) coupling the first composite substrate with the second composite substrate, wherein the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is in contact with the first faying surface of the second composite substrate to produce a second stack (Fig. 7, item 86; [0081]); and (e) curing the second stack to produce the composite [0081].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are allowed.
Claims 10 and 18 would be allowable, after their objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been resolved and withdrawn, pending additional examination.
Regarding claim 1, no prior art was found to modify Palmieri to teach a method for producing a composite comprising: providing a first composite substrate and a second composite substrate, wherein the first composite substrate and the second composite substrate each comprises a substrate with a faying surface comprising a first curable resin comprising a first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer, wherein the first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is stoichiometrically offset with hardener reactive groups; applying a second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer to the faying surface of the first composite substrate and the second composite substrate to produce a first stack and a second stack, wherein the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is stoichiometrically offset with hardener groups; applying a first adhesive to the faying surface of the first stack, the faying surface of the second stack, or on both the faying surface of the first stack and the faying surface of the second stack to produce a third stack and fourth stack; and coupling the third stack with the fourth stack, wherein the first adhesive is between the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer on the third stack and the fourth stack to produce a fifth stack.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are allowable, as they are dependent to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, no prior art was found to modify Palmieri to teach a method for producing a composite comprising: providing a first composite substrate and a second composite substrate, each comprising a first curable resin comprising a first stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer with hardener groups; applying a second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer to the faying surface of the first composite substrate and the second composite substrate to produce a first stack and a second stack, wherein the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer is stoichiometrically offset with hardener reactive groups; applying a first adhesive to the third faying surface of the first stack, the third faying surface of the second stack, or on both the third faying surface of the first stack and the third first faying surface of the second stack to produce a third stack and fourth stack; coupling the third stack with the fourth stack, wherein the first adhesive is between the second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymer on the third stack and the fourth stack to produce a fifth stack.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Palmieri teaches the co-curing of the first and second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymers is done without the presence or need for an adhesive. It would not be considered prima facie obvious to add an adhesive between pairs of composite substrates each comprising first and second stoichiometrically offset thermoset polymers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748