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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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.
The recited shear modulus at failure of 55 MPa or more as determined in accordance with ASTM 5045-14 of claim 1 and a critical stress intensity factor (KIC) of claim 5 are indefinite absent a temperature it is measured since shear modulus is temperature dependent as evidenced by a Figure 9 of EP 3628697 A1 (April 1, 2020).
The KIC is also a temperature dependent inherently.
Other claims depend from the indefinite claim 1 would be also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5-8, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubey et al. (US 2021/0070924 A1).
Dubey et al. teach an epoxy adhesive obtained by curing epoxy resins with an amine curing agent in abstract. Dubey et al. teach the epoxy includes a bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol F (BPF) in [0015] and in examples meeting recited epoxy resin of claims 1 and 6-8. Dubey et al. teach the amine curing agent includes a diamine and triamine in [0019] meeting recited amines of claims 1.
Dubey et al. teach examples yielding the shear modulus of 2,860 to 3,484 MPa in bottom of table 4 meeting the recited shear modulus at failure of 55 MPa claim 1.
Scope of the instant claims would encompass presence of the components such as carbon fiber or glass fiber as evidenced by para. [0088] of the instant specification.
Thus, the instant invention lacks novelty.
Regarding the recited KIC of claim 5, Dubey et al. teach the KIC falling within scope of the instant claim in the table 4.
Regarding claims 6-8, the BPA and BPF used in the examples taught by Dubey et al. meet the claims.
Regarding claim 11, di-methyl amine propyl amine taught in [0020] of Dubey et al. is a secondary amine.
Very limited choice is anticipation and thus choosing the di-methyl amine propyl amine would be anticipation. See In re Arkley, 455 F2d 586, 172 USPQ 524 (CCPA 1972); In re Petering, 301 F2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962). MPEP 2131.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Dubey et al. teach a cured epoxy resin system without using an impact modifier in the table 4.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US 2021/0070924 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dubey et al. teach utilization a mixture of polyamines including a mixture of diamines in [0019-0020].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize a mixture of diamines in an epoxy adhesive taught by Dubey et al. since Dubey et al. teach utilization a mixture of polyamines including a mixture of diamines absent showing otherwise.
In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Claims 1-5, 13, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/085773 A1 (June 13, 2013) in view of 1 page brochure for 3M Epoxy Adhesives by ULINE, and further in view of EP 3628697 A1 (April 1, 2020).
WO teaches a cured 3M Scotch Weld Epoxy Adhesive DP420 yielding a shear modulus of about 8.7 ksi (i.e., about 59.98 MPa) and about 10.9 ksi (i.e., about 75.15 MPa) at an upper portion of page 29 (Example 8). The 3M Scotch Weld Epoxy Adhesive DP420 is a two-component adhesive, but does not specify a component comprising a curing agent/hardener. The brochure for 3M Epoxy Adhesives a dual-cartridge system and a mixing ratio of 2:1 for the DP420.
Utilization of and amine curing agent/hardener with the epoxy resin is well known in the art.
EP teaches that epoxy resins are used in combination with amine hardeners in [0003].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize the component comprising a curing agent/hardener such as the amine hardener taught by EP in WO since 3M Scotch Weld Epoxy Adhesive DP420 is known two-component (i.e., dual-cartridge) inherently and since utilization of and amine curing agent/hardener with the epoxy resin is well known in the art absent showing otherwise.
Regarding claims 2-4, the shear modulus of about 8.7 ksi (i.e., about 59.98 MPa) and about 10.9 ksi (i.e., about 75.15 MPa) taught by WO would meet the claims.
Regarding claim 5, the shear modulus of about 8.7 ksi (i.e., about 59.98 MPa) and about 10.9 ksi (i.e., about 75.15 MPa) taught by WO would be expected to have the recited KIC inherently.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, EP teaches diamines such as m-XDA in [0039] which would make claims 13 and 14 obvious.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the 3M Scotch Weld Epoxy Adhesive DP420 used by WO is a two-component adhesive and thus it would meet claims.
Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/085773 A1 (June 13, 2013) in view of 1 page brochure for 3M Epoxy Adhesives by ULINE, and further in view of EP 3628697 A1 (April 1, 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 13, 14 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Dubey et al. (US 2021/0070924 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8, the recited bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol F (BPF) is well-known epoxy resins as taught by the examples taught by Dubey et al.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize 3M Scotch Weld Epoxy Adhesive DP420 taught by WO comprising the art well known BPA or BPF taught by Dubey et al. absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 11, di-methyl amine propyl amine taught in [0020] of Dubey et al. is a secondary amine. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize 3M Scotch Weld Epoxy Adhesive DP420 taught by WO comprising the art well known BPA or BPF taught by Dubey et al. absent showing otherwise.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Claims 9, 10, 12 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights