DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. On September 21, 2026, claim 1 was proposed to the applicants to include the limitation of claim 3 for the purposes of placing the present application in condition for allowance. It was also proposed to cancel claims 3 and 7-19, and amend claim 2 to include the term “further” after the claimed phrase “wherein the polymer precursors”.
However, no agreement has been made at this time. Thus, an action is sent.
See attached Interview Summary.
Response to Claim Amendment filed 08/20/2026
3. New claim 19 was added which is supported by original claims 1 and 3 language.
Thus, no new matter is present.
4. The claim objection set forth in paragraph 4 of the previous Office action mailed 06/01/2026 is no longer applicable and thus, withdrawn because the applicants amended claims 1, 3-4 and 6 to correct their informalities.
See also Page 5 of Applicants’ Remarks filed 08/20/2026.
5. The 112(b) rejection set forth in paragraph 5 of the previous Office action mailed 06/01/2026 is no longer applicable and thus, withdrawn because the applicants amended claims 1 and 2 to provide the same with clarity.
See also Page 5 of Applicants’ Remarks filed 08/20/2026.
6. No new grounds of rejections are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuki et al. (WO 2016/152856; utilized US 2018/0079879 as its English equivalent) in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2003/0134926).
This rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 of the Office action mailed on 06/01/2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. New claim 19 is allowable over the prior art references of record, namely, Otsuki et al. (WO 2016/152856; utilized US 2018/0079879 as its English equivalent) and Fukuda et al. (US 2003/0134926).
11. As stated in paragraph 7 of the previous Office action mailed 06/01/2026 and mentioned at page 7 of applicants’ remarks filed 08/20/2026, there is no prior art rejection of present claim 3. Since the applicants added new independent claim 19 to include the limitations of claims 1 and 3, via new claim amendment filed 08/20/2026, the collective teachings of Otsuki et al. and Fukuda et al. would not apply. Thus, claim 19 is deemed allowable over the prior art references of record.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments filed 08/20/2026
12. Applicants’ arguments in their Remarks are fully considered but are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
(A) The applicants at pages 6 of their Remarks argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to employ the thermal initiators of Fukuda’s system in the phenoxy resin system of Otsuki because Fukuda’s thermal initiator is for a composition comprising a compound having a (meth)acryloyl group cured by heat or light whereas Otsuki’s phenoxy resins do not employ any acryl groups, and due to the unpredictable nature of these components. The applicants also argue at page 6 of their Remarks that like Otsuki, applicants’ invention as claimed does not use meth(acryloyl) so it would not be obvious to use the thermal initiators of Fukuda with applicant’s compounds.
However, these arguments are not convincing because Otsuki and Fukuda both are directed to the same purpose of yielding fiber-reinforced composite materials (Compare paragraph [0082] of Fukuda with paragraph [0001] of Otsuki). Otsuki also broadly discloses using any other additives to the fiber base material so long as the characteristics of the molded article are not impaired (Paragraphs [0079] and [0083]). However, Otsuki does not specify these other additives as including the claimed thermal initiator and its particular amount. Nevertheless, Fukuda discloses employing thermal-polymerization initiators in the claimed amount to the fiber-reinforced composite material to provide the same with excellent thermal decomposition properties (Paragraphs [0016] and [0082]-[0084]).
Given the facts that the thermal initiator taught by Fukuda is used for various applications including fiber-reinforced composite material and also impart desired thermal decomposition properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thermal initiator taught by Fukuda as one of the various additives in the fiber base material of Otsuki.
Moreover, the teachings of Otsuki do not exclude or teach away from the presence of a compound having a (meth)acryloyl group taught by Fukuda nor is there is any objective evidence on the record to show that such compound taught by Fukuda would be detrimental, much less unpredictable in nature, to Otsuki’s composition.
Additionally, the claims of the present application do not preclude the addition or use of meth(acryloyl) taught by Fukuda.
Thus, for these reasons, the 103 rejection based on the collective teachings of Otsuki and Fukuda is maintained at this time.
(B) The applicants at the bottom of page 6 of their Remarks argue that the dependent claims are allowable based upon their dependence upon allowable claim 1.
However, since present claim 1 is not allowable at this time for the reasons set forth above, the allowable of dependent claims other than claims 3 and 9 are not found allowable.
(C) The applicants at page 7 of their Remarks argue that there is no explanation for selecting clay taught by Fukuda and incorporating it into Otsuki’s matrix resin powder.
However, this argument is not persuasive because Otsuki and Fukuda both are directed to the same purpose of yielding fiber-reinforced composite materials (Compare paragraph [0082] of Fukuda with paragraph [0001] of Otsuki). While Otsuki also broadly discloses the addition of various additives including an inorganic filler (Paragraph [0083]), Otsuki does not specify the filler as including the claimed clay. Nevertheless, Fukuda discloses the addition of well-known additives and reinforcements including inorganic particle fillers such as clays (Paragraph [0082]). Given the fact that the clay filler taught by Fukuda is a well-known filler and reinforcement used in various applications including fiber-reinforced composite material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use clay filler taught by Fukuda as one of the various fillers in the composite material of Otsuki. Contrary to applicants’ arguments, it follows that the combination of Otsuki and Fukuda would have suggested the claimed clay.
(D) Upon further consideration in light of applicants’ arguments provided at page 7 of their Remarks with respect to claim 9, the 103 rejection of record based on claim 9 is no longer applicable and thus, withdrawn.
Correspondence
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH J PAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5456. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 PM; M-F.
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 at (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.
/HANNAH J PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
