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 and response filed on March 06, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuda et al. (US Pub 2019/0161587).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda discloses a thermosetting resin composition comprising a thermosetting resin [0019] and resin particles which contain a polyamide resin and polyolefin resin [0048]. The content of the polyamide in the resin particles is greater than 50% by weight [0048].
Claim 1 has been amended to include a Markush group for (a) the polyolefin resin and (b) the polyamide resin. With respect to (a), the claimed polyolefin Markush group consists of the most commonly known olefin monomers in the art; thus, it is deemed that Matsuda’s generic disclosure of a polyolefin [0048] anticipates the claimed Markush group because one skilled in the art would at once envisage members in the claimed Markush, i.e., ethylene, propylene, etc. See MPEP 2131.02. With respect to (b), the examples of Matsuda use alicyclic polyamide (Example 1) and polyamide 12 (Example 3).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda discloses that the polyamide and polyolefin can contain functional groups ([0025], [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda discloses that the polyolefin can contain an epoxy functional group [0048].
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda discloses that the thermosetting resin can be an epoxy resin [0019].
Regarding claim 5, Matsuda discloses that the resin particles can be present within the presently claimed range [0078].
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda discloses that the specific gravity of the resin particles can be varied but is generally approximately 1.0 [0044].
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda discloses that the polyamide can be an alicyclic polyamide resin [0025].
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda discloses a cured product obtained be thermally curing the thermosetting composition containing the polyamide/polyolefin particles (claim 15, [0121]).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. (US Pub 2019/0161587) in view of WO2009/069725. The English language translation of WO ‘725 provided in the IDS of March 23, 2026 is relied upon in the below rejection. This is an alternative rejection to the above anticipation rejection over Matsuda.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda discloses a thermosetting resin composition comprising a thermosetting resin [0019] and resin particles which contain a polyamide resin, such as an alicyclic polyamide (Example 1) and polyamide 12 (Example 3), and polyolefin resin [0048]. The content of the polyamide in the resin particles is greater than 50% by weight [0048].
Matsuda does not specifically disclose that the polyolefin resin contains at least one monomer selected from the group consisting of propylene, 1-butene, ethylene, 2-butene, isoprene, and 2-pentene. However, Matsuda does disclose the desirability to include a polyolefin-based impact modifier to the resin particle composition [0048]. WO ‘725 discloses that it is known in the art to form a blend of polyamide, which can be an alicyclic polyamide [0014] or polyamide 12 [0015], with a polyolefin that includes an olefin monomer, which can include propylene, 1-butene, and/or ethylene [0020]. WO ‘725 discloses that such a polymer blend provides for a composition having excellent thermal aging resistance and toughness [0001]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have prepared the resin particles of Matsuda wherein the polyolefin includes an olefin monomer selected from propylene, 1-butene, and ethylene, motivated by the desire to obtain a resin particle that exhibits excellent thermal aging resistance and toughness, as taught by WO ‘725.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda discloses that the polyamide and polyolefin can contain functional groups ([0025], [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda discloses that the polyolefin can contain an epoxy functional group [0048].
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda discloses that the thermosetting resin can be an epoxy resin [0019].
Regarding claim 5, Matsuda discloses that the resin particles can be present within the presently claimed range [0078].
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda discloses that the specific gravity of the resin particles can be varied but is generally approximately 1.0 [0044].
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda discloses that the polyamide can be an alicyclic polyamide resin [0025].
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda discloses a cured product obtained be thermally curing the thermosetting composition containing the polyamide/polyolefin particles (claim 15, [0121]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Matsuda does not teach or suggest the combination of a polyolefin resin having monomers selected from the Markush group of claim 1 and a polyamide resin selected from the Markush group of claim 1. These Markush groups were added in the latest claim amendments and fully addressed above in paragraphs 7, 17, and 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights