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 .
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.
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 1-12, 19-30, 34, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (EP1702006, herein Agarwal), in the view of Grinsteinner (US20190153179, herein Grinsteinner).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, 22, 23, 25, and 26, Agarwal teaches network interface device housings [0134] made of polymer compositions comprising at least one matrix polymer, polycarbonate [0021], and at least one filler, glass fiber [0021; 0079], with the ranges of: 5 to about 99 wt.% matrix polymer component [0083], and 0.5 to about 60 wt.% filler [0083], overlap the claimed ranges, wherein, the fibrous fillers may be supplied in the form of reinforcements such as continuous strand mat and three-dimensional reinforcements such as braids [0081], which collectively indicate the spaced apart and aligned in the same or a substantially similar direction. Agarwal further teaches flame retardant compositions [0132] which including: non-chlorinated phosphorus-containing flame retardants [0096], reads on the flame retardant system.
Agarwal explicitly teaches the compositions comprise about 0.5 to about 40 wt.% unencapsulated fluoropolymer [0083]; and about 0.5 to about 60 wt.% encapsulated fluoropolymer each based on the total weight of the composition [0084], wherein the term “about” indicates this range encompasses amounts slightly below 0.5 wt% which fall within the claimed range of less than 0.5 wt%. Furthermore, Agarwal teaches example 12 with fluoropolymer 0% [P19; Table 1], which lies in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have select the range as taught by Agarwal as of about 0.5%. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of shows that compositions including example 12 in accordance with the present invention have excellent modulus [0141] as taught by Agarwal, which can meet: the polymer composition is able to maintain excellent mechanical properties [Instant App. US20220195161; 0012], additionally, the lower percentage of the fluoropolymer inclusion into the polymer matrix can lead to the environmental benign, as well as to reach cost effectiveness of while reducing the amount of fluoropolymer.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Agarwal is silent on the housing assembly. However, Grinsteinner teaches a “base that contains a sidewall” [0053]; a “cover may also be supported on the sidewall of the base” [0053] as the as-claimed optional cover; and teaches that “the housing may be formed from the fiber-reinforced polymer composition” [0053]. Agarwal and Grinsteinner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of thermoplastic-additives based composites for electrical device housings product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agarwal to add the teachings of Grinsteinner and provide a “base that contains a sidewall” [0053]; a “cover may also be supported on the sidewall of the base” [0053]; where “the housing may be formed from the fiber-reinforced polymer composition” [0053]. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of “the housing may be formed from the fiber-reinforced polymer composition of the present invention or from a different material. Notably, one benefit of the present invention is that conventional EMI metal shields (e.g., aluminum plates) and/or heat sinks can be eliminated from the module design, thereby reducing the weight and overall cost of the module.” [0053] as taught by Grinsteinner.
Regarding the polymer composition exhibiting a dielectric constant and polymer composition exhibits a Charpy unnotched impact strength, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. polymer composition exhibits a dielectric constant and polymer composition exhibits a Charpy unnotched impact strength would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claims 2-8, 24, 28, 30, Regarding the polymer composition exhibiting Limiting Oxygen Index; V0 or V1 rating in accordance with UL94; total flame time of about 250 seconds or less in accordance with UL94; flexural strength; Charpy unnotched impact strength; tensile strength, electromagnetic shielding effectiveness, the coefficient of linear thermal expansion, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. polymer composition exhibits Limiting Oxygen Index; V0 or V1 rating in accordance with UL94; total flame time of about 250 seconds or less in accordance with UL94; flexural strength; Charpy unnotched impact strength; tensile strength, electromagnetic shielding effectiveness, the coefficient of linear thermal expansion, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claims 9-11, Agarwal teaches matrix polymer, polycarbonate [0021]; polypropylene [0022]; ABS resins [0022], which is acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene copolymer.
Regarding Claims 19-21, Agarwal teaches UV stabilizers, antioxidants [0085], including: organophosphites such as tris(nonyl phenyl)phosphite [0086], collectively read on the stabilizer system.
Regarding Claims 27, 29, Agarwal is silent on the polymer composition is positioned adjacent to a metal component. However, Grinsteinner teaches a core material that is coated with a metal that can be aluminum, where the core material may be formed from polymer.” [0037] which indicates the metal applied adjacent to the polymer composition as coating. Agarwal and Grinsteinner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of thermoplastic-additives based composites for electrical module product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agarwal to add the teachings of Grinsteinner and provide aluminum coated on the polymer composition. Doing so would further “provide the desired degree of electromagnetic interference shielding” [0037].
Regarding Claims 34, 36-38, Agarwal is silent on the electronic components. However, Grinsteinner teaches “the module may contain radio frequency sensing components.” [0054]; “fiber optic assembly” [0055]; “lidar module” [0055] or “camera module” [0054].
Agarwal and Grinsteinner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of thermoplastic-additives based composites for electrical module product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agarwal to add the teachings of Grinsteinner and provide wherein said “the module may contain radio frequency sensing components.” [0054]; “fiber optic assembly” [0055]; “lidar module” [0055] or “camera module” [0054] into the product. Doing so would further an electronic module that may be used to sense the positioning of the vehicle relative to one or more three-dimensional objects. [0054]
Claims 13-18 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (EP1702006, herein Agarwal) and Grinsteinner (US20190153179, herein Grinsteinner) as applied to claim 1 as set forth above, and in the further view of Shan (US20180247731, herein Shan).
Regarding Claims 13-18, Agarwal teaches flame retardant compositions may be about 1% to about 15% [0132] overlaps the claimed range, including: non-chlorinated phosphorus-containing flame retardants [0096], but does not explicitly teach the specified flame retardant system, however, Shan teaches “flame retardant; phosphazene” [0043] reads on the claimed nitrogen-containing phosphate salt; Shan further teaches “one or more flame retardants can be included in the composition” [0044], including selection between melamine polyphosphate [0043], and the non-phosphate salt such as aluminum oxide [0043], i.e., either polyphosphate [0043] or the non-phosphate salt such as aluminum oxide [0043] can be selected as the solo flame retardant in the composition, hence, can further lead to the nitrogen-containing phosphate salt amount of 0-100% within the flame retardant system. Agarwal and Shan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the thermoplastic-additives based composites for electrical engineering plastics processing and manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agarwal to substitute the teachings of Shan and provide wherein said “flame retardant; phosphazene” [0043] into the composite formulation, and the “one or more flame retardants can be included in the composition” [0044], including selection between melamine polyphosphate [0043], and the non-phosphate salt such as aluminum oxide [0043] into the composition formation. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of “The thermoplastic compositions coating the conductor wires further do not exhibit cracking under bending after aging at 175° C. for 240 hours” [0073] and “The electrical wire achieves a pass rating in the flame propagation test conducted according to ISO 6722.” [0074].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 31, 32, 33, 35 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (EP1702006, herein Agarwal) and Grinsteinner (US20190153179, herein Grinsteinner) as applied to claim 1, and in the further view of Tran (US20200358186, herein Tran).
Regarding Claims 31, 32, 33, 35, Agarwal is silent on the antenna element configured to transmit and receive 5G radio frequency signals and 5G system. However, Tran teaches “antenna element” [0109] and “control/management plane of the 5G network to optimize 5G parameters” [0104]. Agarwal and Tran are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of polymer and fiber composites for signal processing electronic product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Agarwal to add the teachings of “antenna element” [0109] and “control/management plane of the 5G network to optimize 5G parameters” [0104] into the device manufacturing. Doing so would further achieve the more specified product manufacturing with desired property, i.e., “An array of actuator/antenna can be used (similar to bee eyes), each antenna is independently steerable to optimize 5G transmission.” [0121] as taught by Tran.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Agarwal teaches away from the composition of claim 1. Further, as fluoropolymers are taught as an essential feature of Agarwal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to use the fluoropolymer in any lesser amount than Agarwal teaches is required.”, the argument is not persuasive.
In fact, Agarwal explicitly teaches the compositions comprise about 0.5 to about 40 wt.% unencapsulated fluoropolymer [0083]; and about 0.5 to about 60 wt.% encapsulated fluoropolymer each based on the total weight of the composition [0084], wherein the term “about” indicates this range encompasses amounts slightly below 0.5 wt% which fall within the claimed range of less than 0.5 wt%. Furthermore, Agarwal teaches example 12 with fluoropolymer 0% [P19; Table 1], which lies in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have select the range as taught by Agarwal as of about 0.5%. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of shows that compositions including example 12 in accordance with the present invention have excellent modulus [0141] as taught by Agarwal, which can meet: the polymer composition is able to maintain excellent mechanical properties [Instant App. US20220195161; 0012], additionally, the lower percentage of the fluoropolymer inclusion into the polymer matrix can lead to the environmental benign, as well as to reach cost effectiveness of while reducing the amount of fluoropolymer.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767