DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant’s argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not look to Mitsutsuji et al. since the reference pertains to pultrusion molding and allegedly does not require B-staging/thickening is not persuasive. Applicants cite paragraph 59 of Mitsutsuji et al. However, it appears this paragraph describes B-staging, even if the reference does not use the term “B-stage”. B-staging a resin is a process of partially curing, but not fully curing the resin, which allows the product to be handled while malleable before a total cure. Paragraph 59 of Mitsutsuji et al. teaches that the product is first cured by a tension machine coming off the die, but is then “completely cured” in an after cure oven. Paragraph 63 adds that the after cure oven may be installed after the product is “wound up”. Therefore, the product is not completely cured during the cure in the tension machine, and has an increased viscosity at least to the point that the product can be wound up, before it is completely cured. Therefore, Mitsutsuji et al. does describe a B-staging process and implies the viscosity is increased during the first cure step to allow the product to be wound.
B) Applicant’s argument that Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches away from amine groups since there is a strict upper limit of amine groups per epoxy group is not persuasive. First, it is unclear where in Coleman-Kammula et al. applicant is citing from. WO 98/22527 does not have paragraph numbers, and the “strict upper limit of 0.09 mol amine groups per mol epoxy group…” could not be found in the reference. It does appear amounts of curing agent are disclosed on page 10, but the disclosure does not overlap with applicant’s remarks, and the glycidyl amine of Mitsutsuji et al. (N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine) is not a curing agent since the amine groups are tertiary amines, so would not fall within this teaching. Further Coleman-Kammula et al. does suggest a glycidyl amine compound, saying that suitable epoxy compounds are the reaction products of amines and epihalohydrins (pg. 5 lines 15-20).
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, 2, 6-11, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Kammula et al. (WO 98/22527) in view of Mitsutsuji et al. (JP 2008-038082) using the English language translation supplied for the citations below.
Regarding claims 1 and 2: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches a method of producing a sheet molding compound (page 1, lines 1-15) comprising impregnating chopped reinforcement fibers with a sheet like substance (title, abstract, pg. 11, lines 32-33) with an epoxy resin and thickening (abstract) while the composition is still curable/B-stage (abstract). The composition comprises a liquid epoxy resin (abstract), an acid anhydride and a curing agent (pg. 4 lines 14-27). The curing agent can be isopropyl imidazole (pg. 11 lines 10-15), which has a melting point of 129-131 °C. Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches 12 parts of MHHPA/methylhexahydrophthalic anhydride (bottom of table 2), which has the formula of claimed formula (2) in a similar composition having 206 total parts (Table 1, Ex. 1), which is 5.8 parts per 100 total parts. Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches the amount of the imidazole/accelerator is in an amount of 0.01-7 weight percent based on the weight of the composition (pg. 11 lines 15-20), which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping amounts and would have been motivated to do so since Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches these amounts are the appropriate amounts to achieve the disclosed invention.
Coleman-Kammula et al. does not teach a glycidyl amine-based epoxy resin such as N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine. However, Mitsutsuji et al. teaches N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine (para. 28). Coleman-Kammula et al. and Mitsutsuji et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely epoxy resin compositions cured with acid anhydride and reinforced with fiber. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine of Mitsutsuji et al. in the composition of Coleman-Kammula et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches amine-based epoxies can be used (pg. 5 lines 15-20) and the number of glycidyl groups affects the amount of crosslinking in the cured product.
Regarding claims 6 and 8: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches 2-methyl-4-ethyl imidazole (pg. 11 lines 10-15), which is a liquid.
Regarding claim 7: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches the amount of the imidazole/accelerator is in an amount of 0.01-7 weight percent based on the weight of the composition (pg. 11 lines 15-20), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches dicyandiamide (pg. 10 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches a composition comprising 6 parts dicyandiamide in 200 parts total of the liquid epoxy resin composition (ex. II table 1), which is 3 parts dicyandiamide per 100 parts of the total composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the amount of dicyandiamide from a different embodiment in Coleman-Kammula et al. in the embodiment of Coleman-Kammula et al. which has the other claimed components and would have been motivated to do so since a person having ordinary skill in the art would use the broader teaching of the amount as a starting point when incorporating the dicyandiamide, as is taught in the reference.
Regarding claim 11: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches the urea is an optional component (pg. 11 lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 18-21: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches bisphenol A epoxy resin (pg. 6 lines 18-24), which is a difunctional bisphenol epoxy resin.
Claims 3-5, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman-Kammula et al. (WO 98/22527) in view of Mitsutsuji et al. (JP 2008-038082) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Matsumura et al. (JP 2014-185256).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 12-15, and 17: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed are the viscosity properties claimed. However, it appears from the instant specification that the selection of epoxy resin, acid anhydride, and imidazole lead to these properties (see examples 7, 8, 10-12, and 15-23). Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches the use of bisphenol A epoxy resin (pg. 6 lines 18-24) and methyl tetrahydrophthalic anhydride (pg. 8 lines 1-10).
Coleman-Kammula et al. does not teach N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine or the 2,4-diamino-6-[2’-methylimidazole-(1’)]-ethyl-s-triazine. However, Mitsutsuji et al. teaches N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine (para. 28) and Matsumura et al. teaches the 2,4-diamino-6-[2’-methylimidazole-(1’)]-ethyl-s-triazine (claim 2), which are the components that lead to the properties in the instant specification.
Coleman-Kammula et al. and Mitsutsuji et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely epoxy resin compositions cured with acid anhydride and reinforced with fiber. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the N,N,N’,N’-tetraglycidyl-m-xylylenediamine of Mitsutsuji et al. in the composition of Coleman-Kammula et al. and would have been motivated to do so since Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches amine-based epoxies can be used and the number of glycidyl groups affects the amount of crosslinking in the cured product.
Coleman-Kammula et al. and Matsumura et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely carbon fiber reinforced 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 use the 2,4-diamino-6-[2’-methylimidazole-(1’)]-ethyl-s-triazine of Matsumura et al. in the composition of Coleman-Kammula et al. and would have been motivated to do so since it leads to a short cure time, as evidenced by Matsumura et al. (para. 36).
Regarding claim 5: Coleman-Kammula et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Coleman-Kammula et al. does not teach the 2,4-diamino-6-[2’-methylimidazole-(1’)]-ethyl-s-triazine. However, Matsumura et al. teaches the 2,4-diamino-6-[2’-methylimidazole-(1’)]-ethyl-s-triazine (claim 2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the 2,4-diamino-6-[2’-methylimidazole-(1’)]-ethyl-s-triazine of Matsumura et al. in the composition of Coleman-Kammula et al. and would have been motivated to do so since it leads to a short cure time, as evidenced by Matsumura et al. (para. 36).
Conclusion
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.
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 at 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