DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan et al. (US 2002/0119317) in view of Yu et al. (CN 104497480) using the English language machine translation for the citations below and in view of Spencer et al. (US 2021/0002439).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13 and 14: Gan et al. teaches a method of making a composite (para. 2) comprising mixing (para. 107) one or more/mixtures of multifunctional epoxy resins such as a phenol novolac epoxy resin, with a difunctional epoxy resin such as a glycidyl ether of bisphenol A (para. 84). A flame retardant is added (para. 99). Gan et al. also teaches that solvents can be added in an amount of 0-50 wt% (para. 105). The mixture is heated up to 130-140 °C under nitrogen purge/in a controlled environment (para. 112). Gan et al. teaches cooling the mixture to room temperature or 20 °C (para. 112).
Gan et al. does not disclose cooling the mixture to ta temperature range of from about 40 °C to about 90 °C and adding a diluent. However, Yu et al. teaches a method of making a flame retardant epoxy composition comprising heating the epoxy components to a temperature of 100-110 °C and then cooling to 80 °C before adding the active diluting agent (pg. 14) such as dipentene dioxide (pg. 8 para. 23), which is a monofunctional epoxy resin. Gan et al. and Yu et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame retardant epoxy compositions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to cool the reaction product of Gan et al. as in Yu et al. before adding a diluent and would have been motivated to do so to control the viscosity without pre-reacting the active diluent with the epoxy matrix.
Gan et al. also does not teach a second flame retardant which is an intumescent. However, Spencer et al. teaches a similar composite (abstract) comprising an intumescent in the epoxy resin matrix (para. 79). Paragraph 79 of Spencer et al. teaches that the blowing agent and the fire retardant solid fillers are adapted to form an intumescent char. Spencer et al. also teaches the solid fillers to promote fire retardancy and/or reduce generation of smoke can be silica (para. 76), which is a silicon-containing compound. Gan et al. and Spencer et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fire retardant epoxy compositions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the intumescent with the flame retardant in Gan et al. as in Spencer et al. and would have been motivated to do so since the intumescent generates a non-combustible gas to promote fire retardancy.
Regarding claims 4 and 6: Gan et al. teaches the amount of epoxy resin material used in the composition is 30-95 wt % (para. 62), which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7: Gan et al. teaches the flame retardant is a phosphorus containing flame retardant (para. 76, 77).
Regarding claim 8: Gan et al. teaches the flame retardant in an amount of 0-40 wt % (para. 103).
Regarding claim 12: Gan et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above including cooling the mixture to room temperature or 20 °C (para. 112) as well as forming an aerospace part/printed wiring board (para. 2). Not disclosed is mixing the mixture for 2-6 hours. However, Endo et al. teaches mixing for 2 hours (para. 61). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to mix the mixture for 2 hours and would have been motivated to do so in order to sufficiently mix the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach a silicon-containing compound as an intumescent is not persuasive. Spencer et al. teaches a silica as a fire retardant solid filler (para. 76). The fire retardant solid filler is adapted to form an intumescent char (para. 79). Therefore, the prior art does disclose this feature.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights