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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-25) in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 26-31 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 1-25 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 1 is drawn to a composite material layer first embodiment comprising a prepreg (fibrous reinforcement impregnated with a curable resin) or a composite material layer second embodiment comprising a film of the curable resin. It is not clear how just a film of curable resin may be considered a “composite” material layer. It is unclear if a fibrous reinforcement is required by the second embodiment.
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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2012/0261060 to Jones in view of USPN 4,644,039 to Boyd, USPN 2014/0323613 to Koers, and/or USPN 5,262,212 to Waters.
Claim 1, Jones discloses a composite material layer, the composite material layer comprising a curable resin which is in the form of a solid layer at 20°C, wherein the composite material layer comprises a prepreg comprising at least one ply of fibrous reinforcement material which is at least partly impregnated by the curable resin or the composite material layer comprises a film of the curable resin, wherein at least 50 wt% of the curable resin comprises at least one polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer having at least two carbon-carbon unsaturated functional groups, the prepolymer being polymerisable by reaction of the unsaturated functional groups to form a cured resin, wherein the curable resin further comprises a free-radical curing system for polymerizing the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer, wherein the curable resin inherently has a reaction onset temperature within the range of from 80 to 100 °C, as measured by dynamic scanning calorimetry (DSC) over a temperature range of from 25 to 260 °C. at a ramp rate of 10° C/minute, and the curable resin inherently has a gel time of from 10 to 60 minutes, measured at a temperature of 70° C (see entire document including [0052]-[0058], [0132]-[0138], [0169], [0170] and the Examples).
Regarding the above properties, Jones discloses a substantially identical composite material layer including at least one peroxide curing agent present in a substantially identical amount of about 1 part per hundred and a substantially identical heat of polymerization, viscosity, unsaturation content, and average molecular weight. Therefore, the claimed properties are either explicitly taught or would be inherent. Plus, regarding gel time, Boyd discloses that it is known in the art for gel time to be about 5-20 minutes to avoid excessive resin bleed (see entire document including column 7, lines 3-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the type and/or amount of curing agent to obtain a gel time of 5-20 minutes to avoid excessive resin bleed.
Claim 2, the free-radical curing system comprises at least one peroxide curing agent inherently having a self-accelerating decomposition temperature within the range of from 45 to 95 °C, from 50 to 80 °C, or from 55 to 70 °C ([0170] and the Examples). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the curing agent decomposition temperature, such as claimed, based on the desired curing process such as pot life and/or cure time and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 3, the at least one peroxide curing agent is selected from tert-butoxy 2-ethylhexyl carbonate, 2-butanone peroxide (methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), dibenzoyl peroxide, cyclohexylidenebis[tert-butyl] peroxide, cyclohexylidenebis[tert-amyl] peroxide, cumene hydroperoxide, tert-butylperoxy isopropyl carbonate, tert-butyl peroxybenzoate, tert-butyl peroxy-3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate, 1,1-di(tert-butylperoxy)-3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane, tert-amyl peroxy-2-ethylhexyl carbonate, di-tert-butyl peroxide, tert-amyl peroxybenzoate, di-tert-amyl peroxide, N-Butyl-4,4-di(tert-butylperoxy)valerate, 1,2-dimethylproplyidene dihydroperoxide and methyl isopropyl ketone peroxide or any mixture of two or more thereof ([0170] and the Examples). Plus, the examiner takes official notice that the claimed peroxide curing agents are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the composite material layer from any suitable peroxide curing agent, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 4, the at least one peroxide curing agent is present in a concentration of from 0.1 to 3 parts per hundred, from 0.5 to 2 parts per hundred, or from 0.5 to 1.5 parts per hundred, based on the weight of the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer (Examples).
Claims 5-7, Jones does not appear to mention the free-radical curing system further comprising a first auxiliary curing agent comprising a transition metal complex or a transition metal ligand but Koers discloses that it is known in the art to include a first auxiliary curing agent (accelerator) comprising a copper or iron complex or a transition metal ligand, in a concentration of from 0.05 to 3.0 parts per hundred, from 0.05 to 1 parts per hundred, or from 0.075 to 0.3 parts per hundred, based on the weight of a polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer, to improve the hardness of the cured resin (see entire document including [0001], [0002], [0008]-[0011], [0043], [0046], [0052], and [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed accelerator, and in the claimed amount, to improve the hardness of the cured resin
Claims 8-10, Jones does not appear to mention the free-radical curing system further comprising a second auxiliary curing agent comprising at least one of an aliphatic dione and a nitrogen-containing aliphatic or aromatic compound but Waters discloses that it is known in the art to include 2,4-pentane dione, in a concentration of from 0.05 to 3.0 parts per hundred, from 0.05 to 1 parts per hundred or from 0.075 to 0.5 parts per hundred, based on the weight of a polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer, to delay gelation (i.e. curing) as desired (see entire document including column 8, lines 7-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include 2,4-pentane dione, in a concentration of from 0.05 to 3.0 parts per hundred, from 0.05 to 1 parts per hundred or from 0.075 to 0.5 parts per hundred, based on the weight of the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer, to delay gelation (i.e. curing) as desired.
Claims 11 and 20-22, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical composite material layer, the claimed properties appear to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 12, Jones discloses that the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer has a heat of polymerization of from 110 to 160 KJ/kg, or from 120 to 160 KJ/kg (Example 1).
Claim 13, Jones discloses that the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer has a theoretical average, by number, molecular weight of from 750 to 1250, or from 800 to 1100 (claim 6).
Claim 14, Jones discloses that the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer has less than 2.2 gram equivalents of unsaturation per kilogram of the polymerisable vinyl ester monomer [0131].
Claims 15-18, Jones discloses that the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer may have the claimed structure (Example 1).
Claim 19, Jones discloses a substantially identical composite material layer including at least one peroxide curing agent present in a substantially identical amount of about 1 part per hundred, a substantially identical heat of polymerization, viscosity, unsaturation content, and average molecular weight. Therefore, the claimed properties are either explicitly taught or would be inherent. Plus, regarding gel time, Boyd discloses that it is known in the art for gel time to be about 5-20 minutes to avoid excessive resin bleed (see entire document including column 7, lines 3-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the type and/or amount of curing agent to obtain a gel time of 5-20 minutes to avoid excessive resin bleed.
Claim 23, the curable resin may be free of any particulate filler and/or free of any solvent for the at least one polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer, and/or the curable resin consists of the at least one polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer and the free-radical curing system for polymerizing the polymerisable vinyl ester prepolymer (see entire document including [0161]).
Claim 24, the composite material layer comprises a prepreg comprising at least one ply of fibrous reinforcement material which is at least partly impregnated by the curable resin, and wherein the prepreg comprises a ply of the curable resin laminated to a ply of fibrous reinforcement material whereby an exterior surface of the prepreg is formed by the ply of the curable resin ([0058]-[0061] and the Examples).
Claim 25, the prepreg comprising a plurality of plies of fibrous reinforcement material and a plurality of plies of the curable resin, wherein the plies of fibrous reinforcement material and the plies of the curable resin are laminated together in an alternating arrangement ([0058]-[0061] and the Examples).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789