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 .
The Office Action is in response to the application filed December 21, 2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A manufacturing method for an epoxy resin laminate reinforced by carbon-basalt hybrid fibers, comprising the following steps:
brushing an epoxy resin mixture by using a manual laying method, and laying carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts according to components and superposing modes to obtain superposed fiber felts after laying;
placing the superposed fiber felts after laying into a vacuum bag, and evacuating air; and
placing the superposed fiber felts after laying in a vulcanizing machine, heating the superposed fiber felts after laying to a temperature required for a crosslinking reaction between epoxy resin and a curing agent by using a preset heating method, applying a pressure by an upper die and a lower die to make interiors of the superposed fiber felts after laying compact and surfaces of the superposed fiber felts after laying smooth, and keeping the temperature and the pressure to obtain the epoxy resin laminate reinforced by the carbon-basalt hybrid fibers.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the images of FIG. 4C-D, FIG. 5B-C, FIG. 6B-D are blurry, and the text of FIG. 6A-D and 7A-D are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “after laying” several times which is redundant. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “to obtain superposed fiber felts
Claims 2 and 10 recite “suitable for a space of a hot pressing” which is grammatically incorrect. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “suitable for hot pressing”.
Claim 6, Line 4 recites “placing carbon/basalt hybrid fibers” (emphasis added). Applicant is advised to rephrase to “placing the carbon-basalt hybrid fibers” (emphasis added) to be consistent with the language in Claim 6, Line 2.
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 1- 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “brushing an epoxy resin mixture by using a manual laying method, and laying carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts according to components and superposing modes to obtain superposed fiber felts after laying” – however the claim language does not define the “manual laying method” render the claim unclear and therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase will be interpreted to mean “an epoxy resin mixture was brushed over both sides of carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts to impregnate the carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts, and then layering the carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts to obtain superposed fiber felts” as supported by the instant Specification [¶ 0068, 0077].
Claims 3 and 11 recite “E-51 type epoxy resin” and “malonaldehyde (MDA) type curing agent”. The word "type" has been held to render an otherwise definite expression indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(e). Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 U.S.P.Q. 118 (Bd. Pat. App. 1955). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites layer number ratios of the carbon fiber felts to the basalt fiber felt wherein the layers of each fiber felt are 16:0, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, and 0:16, respectively; and superposing modes of the carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts, wherein the layers of each fiber felt are 1:1. In this case, the component layer ratios of 3:1, and 1:3, conflict with and are not compatible with the requirement of the superposing mode layer ratio of 1:1 rendering the claim unclear, and therefore indefinite. Furthermore, Claim 5, Line 3 recites components of the “according to the components and the superposing modes to obtain the superposing fiber felts” followed by a list of components and a list of superposing modes. The use of the word “and” implies Claim 5 requires at least one component from each list. Applicant is advised to add the word “or” between the penultimate and last component from each list and to clarify that the components are listed in the alternative and that at one component is required from each list.
Claims 8 and 16 recite “a high speed rotating serrated disc”. The term “high speed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification does not teach the value and method for measuring the speed of the rotating serrated disc. Therefore, the scope of the claim is deemed indefinite. For the purposes of examination, “high speed rotating serrated disc” will be interpreted to read as “rotating serrated disc”.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 4-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 106046682A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Wu”) in view of Yin et al. (CN 105965983A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Yin”) and Liu et al. (CN 111421926 A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Liu”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Wu teaches a method for improving epoxy-resin based composite materials with reinforcing fibers that comprise one or more of basalt fiber and carbon fiber to form plain weave fabric [Claims 1-2; ¶ 0004, 0015-0019], corresponding to a manufacturing method for an epoxy resin laminate reinforced by carbon-basalt hybrid fibers of Claim 1, and epoxy resin laminate reinforced by carbon-basalt hybrid fibers of Claim 9. Wu teaches the method comprises:
coating material uniformly coated on the basalt and carbon fiber plain weave fabric, then placing the coated basalt and carbon fiber plain weave fabric in a vacuum to obtain a prepreg, then cutting and stacking the prepreg [Claim 3; ¶ 0018-0019], corresponding to applying an epoxy resin mixture by using a manual laying method, and laying carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts according to components and superposing modes to obtain superposed fiber felts after laying of Claim 1, placing the superposed fiber felts after laying into a vacuum of Claim 1;
wherein the coating material comprises a curing agent [Claim 3; ¶ 0017], corresponding to the curing agent of Claim 1;
placing the prepreg stack into a vulcanizing machine to heat cure the composite material [Claim 3; ¶ 0024], corresponding to placing the superposed fiber felts after laying in a vulcanizing machine, heating the superposed fiber felts after laying to a temperature required for a crosslinking reaction between epoxy resin and a curing agent by using a preset heating method of Claim 1; and
wherein the method of molding and curing is as follows: heat, pressurize, and cure to form and cure epoxy resin-based fiber composite material [Claim 7], corresponding to applying a pressure to make interiors of the superposed fiber felts after laying compact, and keeping the temperature and the pressure to obtain the epoxy resin laminate reinforced by the carbon-basalt hybrid fibers of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 12, however, Wu does not explicitly teach brushing an epoxy resin mixture of Claim 1, laying the fiber felts into a vacuum bag of Claim 1, applying pressure by an upper die and a lower die to make interiors of the fiber felts after laying compact and surfaces of the fiber felts after laying smooth of Claim 1, and brushing epoxy resin mixture with a brush such that the carbon fiber felts and the basalt fiber felts are impregnated with the epoxy resin mixture of Claims 4 and 12.
Regarding the step of brushing, Wu teaches the application of epoxy resin with a scraper to obtain a prepreg [¶ 0041]. Since brushes and scrapers are both tools used to apply and spread epoxy resin, the process of scraping of Wu will be interpreted to read on the brushing step of Claim 1, and brushing with a brush such that the fiber felts are impregnated with the epoxy resin mixture of Claims 4 and 12. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that different but functionally equivalent methods of applying epoxy resin are known in the field and similarly result in applied epoxy resin and fiber felts that are impregnated with the epoxy resin as required by the claims.
In the case the scraping step of Wu does not read on the claimed brushing step, Liu nevertheless teaches a preparation method of a continuous fiber cloth three-dimensional reinforced composite material [Abstract]. The method of Liu comprises use of a levelling brush to apply resin on the surface of a carbon and basalt fiber cloth, and then curing the resin to obtain an impregnated fiber cloth [¶ 0020, 0082, 0091], wherein the brushing step reads on the brushing epoxy resin step of Claim 1, and corresponds with brushing the resin mixture over the carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts by using a brush, such that the fiber felts are impregnated with the resin mixture of Claims 4 and 12.
Liu offers the motivation that the levelling brush is used to evenly distribute the resin on the surface of the fiber cloth [¶ 0096].
Regarding the vacuum bag, and upper and lower die of Claim 1, Yin teaches a method for manufacturing a carbon fiber-basalt fiber epoxy resin composite board [Claims 1-4; ¶ 0034-0040], comprising:
Producing a substrate by applying epoxy resin between a layer of carbon fiber and basalt fiber material, and then placing the substrate in a mold in a silicone bag to evacuate the air with a vacuum [¶ 0036-0040], which corresponds with laying the fiber felts into a vacuum bag of Claim 1;
Placing a pressure plate on the upper surface of the substrate to ensure the flatness of the substrate [¶ 0040], corresponding to applying pressure to make the fiber felts after laying compact and surfaces of the fiber felts after laying smooth of Claim 1;
Wherein the lower surface of the mold and the pressure plate correspond to the lower and upper die, respectively, of Claim 1.
Yin offers the motivation that basalt fiber material is added to enhance the strength to the composite [¶ 0042].
Wu, Liu, and Yin are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing cured resin and basalt fiber-carbon fiber composite materials.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the brush of Liu, and alternating layers of carbon fiber fabric and basalt fiber fabric of Yin with the epoxy-resin based composite materials of Wu, with the motivation to evenly distribute the resin and improve composite strength, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Wu further teaches epoxy-resin-based basalt fiber composite materials, and is silent to the composite material comprising carbon fibers [¶ 0034-0040], and therefore reads on a layer number ratio of the carbon fiber felts to the basalt fiber felts is 0:16 of Claims 5 and 13.
However, Wu does not explicitly teach the step of laying the carbon fiber felts and the basalt fiber felts according to the superposing modes to obtain the superposed fiber felts of Claims 5 and 13, and to the 16 layers of carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts of Claims 5 and 13.
Nevertheless, Yin also teaches a method for manufacturing a carbon fiber-basalt fiber epoxy resin composite board [Claims 1-2; ¶ 0034-0040], comprising:
Producing a substrate by applying epoxy resin between a layer of carbon fiber and basalt fiber material [¶ 0036-0038], corresponding to manually layer layers of fiber felts of Claims 5 and 13, and thereby reading on wherein the layer number ratio of the carbon fiber felts to the basalt fiber felts is 1:1 of Claims 5 and 13;
One or more basalt fiber layers are preferably provided between a skeleton and the carbon fiber layer [¶ 0023].
Yin offers the motivation that basalt fiber material is added to enhance the strength to the composite [¶ 0042].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alternating layers of carbon fiber fabric and basalt fiber fabric of Yin with the epoxy-resin based composite materials of Wu, with the motivation to improve composite strength, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
However, Yin does not teach the 16 layers of carbon fiber felts and basalt fiber felts of Claims 5 and 13.
Nevertheless, Yin teaches at least one layer of basalt fiber in combination with at least one carbon fiber layer, which is equivalent to at least two fiber layers. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Yin for the number of fiber layers (n ≥ 2) overlaps the instantly claimed range (n = 16) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the number of basalt fiber and carbon fiber layers can be optimized to improve composite strength via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the method of repeating the layers until the desired effect is achieved via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Wu further teaches:
cutting the prepreg and placing it in the mold on the vulcanizing machine [¶ 0019; Claim 3], which corresponds with placing the fiber pelts after laying impregnated with the epoxy resin mixture in the vulcanizing machine of Claims 7 and 15;
applying epoxy resin to basalt fiber plain weave fabric and scraping it flat with a scraper to make it evenly coated [¶ 0035, 0041], which corresponds with the fiber felts after laying compact, the surfaces of the fiber felts after laying smooth of Claims 7 and 15; and
applying pressure, and raising the temperature to 160°C [¶ 0036], which is substantially close with performing curing at a temperature of 180°C of Claims 7 and 15.
Wu also teaches the properties of the composite material depend on the properties of the fibers, the properties of the resin, and the interface between the fibers and the resin [¶ 0004].
However, Wu does not explicitly teach the heating die plates of Claims 7 and 15, placing a supporting die with a thickness of 3.6mm between the upper and lower die of the vulcanizing machine, and the superposed fiber felts after laying have a thickness of 3.6mm of Claims 7 and 15, performing hot pressing for 17h at a constant temperature of 120°C and then curing for 2h of Claims 7 and 15, performing curing at a temperature of 180°C of Claims 7 and 15.
Regarding the curing temperature of 180°C, Wu teaches applying pressure and curing at 160°C [¶0036]. The temperature of 160°C as taught by Wu is substantially close to the temperature of 180°C as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the temperature of 160°C as taught by Wu would result in the same properties as the claimed temperature of 180°C thereby rendering the claimed range obvious.
Regarding the differences in applying heat and pressure and die size, these differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature, pressure, and size are critical. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine optimum combination of values in a disclosed set of ranges (MPEP 2144.05.II.A.). This decision is clearly analogous to other process parameters. Where the principle difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference results in a different final product, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that difference (see Ex parte Khusid, 174 USPQ 59), ideally with experimental data. Furthermore, Wu teaches the epoxy resin is uniformly coated on the fiber plain weave fabrics and the properties of the final composite material are dependent on the interface between the fibers and the cured resin [¶ 0004, 0018, 0035]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that different functionally equivalent methods and conditions of hot pressing and curing are known in the field and similarly result in hot pressed and cured epoxy resin as required by the claims. Therefore, the method of hot pressing and curing the epoxy resin can be optimized to improve epoxy impregnation to achieve desired epoxy-fiber interface properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the hot pressing and curing conditions via routine optimization for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Wu further teaches cutting the prepreg [¶ 0042], which corresponds with cutting the epoxy resin laminate reinforced by the carbon-basalt hybrid fibers of Claims 8 and 16.
However, Wu does not explicitly teach cutting the epoxy resin laminate reinforced by the carbon-basalt hybrid fibers into a standard size of 105×105 mm2 of Claims 8 and 16.
Although, the “105x105 mm2” is a discrete element of the claimed article, this is not a design application but a utility application with all claims directed to articles or products of manufacture. Therefore, the “105x105 mm2” is merely a size of the underlying article. There is no evidence that the size of 105x105 mm2 has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the size of the laminate being 105x105 mm2 relates only to matters of ornamentation or aesthetic design and the particular size affixed to the claimed article does not patentably distinguish this article from that of the prior art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to provide the laminate in the references cited in the 103 rejections above with a corresponding size. Therefore, a laminate in the size of 105x105 mm2 would be an obvious design choice. In the case the laminate size of 105x105 mm2 provides unexpected results or functionality, evidence would need to be provided indicating the size of 105×105 mm2 is critical.
Claims 2, 6, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN106046682A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Wu”) in view of Yin et al. (CN 105965983A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Yin”) as evidenced by Kintek (What Is Hot Pressing And What Industries Commonly Use It? Discover Key Applications And Benefits, Kintek Press; hereafter as “Kintek”).
Wu and Yan teach the method of manufacturing of epoxy resin laminate reinforced by carbon-basalt hybrid fibers of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 2, 6, 10 and 14, Wu further teaches:
cutting the prepreg, and then placing it in a mold [Claim 3; ¶ 0018-0019], corresponding to cutting the carbon fiber felts and the basalt fiber felts of Claims 2 and 10;
heating and pressurizing the prepreg after placing it in the mold [¶ 0024]; and
laying basalt fiber plain weave cloth on Teflon cloth, applying the coating material to the basalt fiber plain weave cloth, placing the coated fibers in an oven and heated at 60°C, then placed in a vacuum drying oven and vacuumed to obtain the prepreg [¶ 0035, 0082], which corresponds placing carbon/basalt hybrid fibers after laying in the vacuum, laying a polytetrafluoroethylene film between the fiber felts after laying, and evacuating the air from the vacuum bag for degassing, such that the superposed fiber felts after laying are impregnated with the epoxy resin mixture of Claims 6 and 14.
Kintek teaches that hot pressing is not a single application but a fundamental principle that uses heat and pressure that transforms raw materials into dense, finished products [¶ 1-2]. Thus, the heat and pressure treating step of Wu will be interpreted to read on the hot pressings step of Claims 6 and 14. Furthermore, since the prepreg of Wu is able to be heat and pressure treated after cutting, the cutting step of Wu will be interpreted to read on cutting the carbon fiber felts and the basalt fiber felts into sizes suitable for a space of a hot pressing of Claims 2 and 10.
However, Wu does not explicitly teach degassing at a temperature of 70℃ for degassing of Claims 6 and 14.
Regarding degassing at 70°C, Wu teaches degassing at 60°C [¶0082]. The temperature of 60°C as taught by Wu is substantially close to the temperature of 70°C as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the temperature of 60°C as taught by Wu would result in the same properties as the claimed temperature of 70°C thereby rendering the claimed range obvious.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN106046682A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Wu”) in view of Yin et al. (CN 105965983A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Yin”) and Feichtenschlager et al. (WO 2016/050398A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Feichtenschlager”).
Wu and Yin teach the method of manufacturing of epoxy resin laminate reinforced by carbon-basalt hybrid fibers of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Wu further teaches:
heating the epoxy resin E-51 to 70°C [¶ 0082], which is substantially close to heating the epoxy resin to a liquid state at 75℃ of Claims 3 and 11, and corresponds with wherein the epoxy resin is E51 type epoxy resin of Claims 3 and 11;
evenly stirring the epoxy resin and curing agent at a mass ratio of 100:27 [Claims 3, 5], which corresponds with uniformly mixing the epoxy resin in the liquid state and the curing agent in the liquid state at a mass ratio of 100:26.7 to obtain the epoxy resin mixture of Claims 3 and 11; and
magnetic stirring [Example 1; ¶ 0080-0081], corresponding to electromagnetic stirring of Claims 3 and 11.
However, Wu is silent to heating the epoxy resin to a liquid state at 75℃ of Claims 3 and 11, heating the curing agent at a liquid state to 100°C of Claims 3 and 11, performing electromagnetic stirring under a heating condition of 75℃ of Claims 3 and 11, and wherein the curing agent is a malonaldehyde (MDA) type curing agent of Claims 3 and 11.
Regarding heating the epoxy resin to 75°C, Wu teaches heating the epoxy resin to 70°C [¶0082]. The temperature of 70°C as taught by Wu is substantially close to the temperature of 75°C as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the temperature of 70°C as taught by Wu would result in the same properties as the claimed temperature of 75°C thereby rendering the claimed range obvious.
Regarding heating the curing agent to a liquid state at 100°C and performing the electromagnetic stirring at 75°C, however, Wu teaches that a uniform dispersion in the resin matrix allows it to transfer stress between the matrix and the fiber reinforcement and to construct a thermally conductive network [¶ 0026]. Therefore, the temperature and method of mixing the epoxy resin can be optimized to improve dispersion uniformity to achieve desired network properties via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the temperature and mixing method for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding wherein the curing agent is a malonaldehyde (MDA) type curing agent, Feichtenschlager teaches a cured resin and carbon fiber-basalt fiber composite material [Claim 19; ¶ 0217], comprising malonaldehyde [¶ 0106].
Feichtenschlager offers the motivation that the composite material has an advantageous curing profile that does not cure at room temperature and can be cured by heating [¶ 0002; 0218].
Wu and Feichtenschlager are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing cured resin and carbon fiber composite materials.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the malonaldehyde of Feichtenschlager with the epoxy-resin based composite materials of Wu, with the motivation to improve curing characteristics, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights