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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/5/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4 and 6-25 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 a laminate comprising a film of the curable resin and a fibrous reinforcing material, wherein at least 50 wt% of the curable resin comprises at least one polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer having at least two carbon-carbon unsaturated functional groups, the prepolymer being polymerizable 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 polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer, wherein 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, the at least one peroxide curing agent is present in a concentration of from 0.1 to 3 parts per hundred based on the weight of the polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer; and 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 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). 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.
Jones does not appear to mention the free-radical curing system further comprising a first auxiliary curing agent comprising a transition metal complex but Koers discloses that it is known in the art to include a first auxiliary curing agent (accelerator) comprising a copper or iron complex present in a concentration of from 0.05 to 3.0 parts per hundred based on the weight of a polymerizable 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.
Regarding the above properties, the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical composite material layer including at least one peroxide curing agent present in a substantially identical amount, a substantially identical first auxiliary curing agent present in a substantially identical amount, 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 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 (now admitted prior art) 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 0.5 to 1.5 parts per hundred based on the weight of the polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer (Examples).
Claims 6 and 7, Jones does not appear to mention the free-radical curing system further comprising a first auxiliary curing agent comprising a transition metal complex but Koers discloses that it is known in the art to include a first auxiliary curing agent (accelerator) comprising a copper or iron complex, in a concentration of from 0.075 to 0.3 parts per hundred based on the weight of a polymerizable 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 based on the weight of a polymerizable 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 based on the weight of the polymerizable 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 polymerizable 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 polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer has a theoretical average, by number, molecular weight of from 750 to 1250 (claim 6).
Claim 14, Jones discloses that the polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer has less than 2.2 gram equivalents of unsaturation per kilogram of the polymerizable vinyl ester monomer [0131].
Claims 15-18, Jones discloses that the polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer may have the claimed structure (Example 1).
Claim 19, the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical composite material layer including at least one peroxide curing agent present in a substantially identical amount, a substantially identical first auxiliary curing agent present in a substantially identical amount, 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 23, the curable resin may be free of any particulate filler and/or free of any solvent for the at least one polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer, and/or the curable resin consists of the at least one polymerizable vinyl ester prepolymer and the free-radical curing system for polymerizing the polymerizable 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Jones fails to inherently teach the claimed properties because Jones uses a different curing system that lacks a first auxiliary curing agent comprising a transition metal complex. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in cope with the rejection. Jones does not appear to mention the free-radical curing system further comprising a first auxiliary curing agent comprising a transition metal complex but Koers discloses that it is known in the art to include a first auxiliary curing agent (accelerator) comprising a copper or iron complex present in a concentration of from 0.05 to 3.0 parts per hundred based on the weight of a polymerizable 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.
Regarding the claimed properties, the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical composite material layer including at least one peroxide curing agent present in a substantially identical amount, a substantially identical first auxiliary curing agent present in a substantially identical amount, 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.
The applicant asserts that Koers requires room temperature curing of the epoxy resin while Jones requires an epoxy resin with reasonable storage life a room temperature. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Koers discloses that although curing is preferably carried out at ambient temperatures, the curing process can be carried out at any temperature from -15º C up to 250º C [0068].
All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose, In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966); In re Smith, 65 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1945); In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960); In re Watanabe, 137 USPQ 350 (CCPA 1963). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights