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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-9, 13-16, 19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance (WO 2018226657 A1, hereinafter referring to US 20200083610 A1 as the US equivalent) in view of O’Connor (US 2019/0291364 A1) and PolyOne (Dow HDPE DMDA-8007 NT 7 Datasheet).
Regarding claim 1, Pance teaches an electromagnetic device including an electromagnetic beam shaper (Abstract), which is composed of a dielectric material ([0045]). Pance teaches that the dielectric material is formed from a thermoplastic or thermosetting polymer matrix and a filler composition containing a dielectric filler ([0045]), and specifies that the polymer matrix may be formed from polyphenylene ethers ([0046]) or copolymers of tetrafluoroethylene and hexafluoropropylene ([0047]), which read on the claimed “polyphenylene ether (PPE)” and “fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP),” respectively. Pance also teaches that the filler material may be titanium dioxide ([0063]).
Pance teaches that the composition of polymer and dielectric filler may be manufactured into a dielectric volume by differing means, including a molding process ([0082]) which involves mixing the components together ([0084]), which reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the titanium dioxide is evenly distributed throughout the polymer.” Pance does not teach a heterogeneous distribution of fillers. Pance further teaches the surface treatment of fillers to improve their dispersion within the polymer matrix ([0064]).
Pance finally teaches that the dielectric filler may comprise 0 to 70 vol.% of the dielectric volume ([0045]), which encompasses the claimed range of “above 5 vol%, up to 40 vol%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Pance differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the claimed particle size range. In the same field of endeavor, O’Connor teaches a thermoplastic composite containing a thermoplastic polymer and a dielectric filler (Abstract), wherein the thermoplastic polymer may be, inter alia, FEP and PPE ([0017]) and the dielectric filler may be titanium dioxide ([0027]). O’Connor further teaches that the dielectric filler comprises two types of particles, the first subset of which has an average particle size range from 1 to 10 microns, and the second subset of which has an average particle size range from 0.01 to 1 micron ([0025]). Both of these ranges overlap the claimed range of “1nm to 1 micron in size,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. O’Connor teaches a specific multimodal distribution of the aforementioned particles [0023], and teaches that the incorporation of this combination of particle sizes allows for improved viscosity control ([0013]). Pance also contemplates the injection molding of the inventive composition ([0095]), and it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the titanium dioxide particles of O’Connor within the formulation of Pance for the purpose of controlling the viscosity of the formulation for injection molding.
Pance further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the polymer matrix having a melt flow rate index of at least 100g per 10 minutes. However, O’Conner teaches that, in addition to FEP and PPE polymers, thermoplastics products containing titanium dioxide may additionally be formed from high density polyethylene (HPDE, [0017]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize HDPE in place of the FEP/PPE polymers of Pance, as O’Conner teaches them as suitable for forming thermoplastic articles containing titanium dioxide.
While neither Pance nor O’Conner specify the range of melt flow rates of HDPE suitable for thermoplastics containing titanium dioxide, both documents are likewise absent any teaching away from any particular melt flow rates. Pance in particular specifically mentions melt flow rates (e.g., at [0055]), but does not limit the included melt flow rates.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, an HDPE having a melt flow rate of 180 g/10 min and suitable for injection molding applications (DOW HDPE DMDA-8007 NT 7), was commercially available at the time of filing by The Dow Chemical company (c.f. PolyOne, p. 1). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize said HDPE polymer within the formulation of Pance as modified, as PolyOne teaches that it is an HDPE polymer suitable for injection molding applications. The melt flow rate of 180 g/10 minutes falls within the claimed range of “at least 100 g per 10 min,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Pance teaches the specific formation of a Luneburg lens as the inventive EM beam shaper ([0022]) and teaches that the lens may be in the shape of a sphere ([0025]) having multiple layers of dielectric (c.f. Figures 2C and 2D, and [0026]) and with a dielectric constant which decreases from the center to the edge of the sphere ([0025] and [0031]), which reads on the claimed limitation requiring that the article has “doubly-curved layers because the instant Specification states that spheres are “doubly-curved” (c.f. instant Specification at p. 15, lines 19-20) and which further reads on the claimed structure because the instant Specification states that Luneburg lenses are multilayer beamforming lenses (c.f. instant Specification p. 15, lines 29-32). Pance further teaches that the core of the sphere may have a dielectric constant over 2, including 3, 4, or 5 ([0031]), which reads on the claimed range of “substantially more than 2,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthermore, Pance teaches that the dielectric filler is responsible for the desired electrical and mechanical properties of the inventive product, and that the dielectric filler may be included in varying amounts ([0045]). Pance additionally teaches that the polymer and filler are selected to provide the desired dielectric constant ([0045]), and teaches that the dielectric constant decreases layer-by-layer as the layers move outwards from the center of the product (p. 13, claim 10). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to decrease the amount of dielectric filler within each successive layer to achieve the desired relationship between core and surface dielectric constant values.
Regarding claim 7, Pance teaches that surface treatment of the fillers is optional ([0064]), and therefore Pance teaches fillers (including titanium dioxide) which are not surface treated.
Regarding claim 8, Pance teaches that the fillers (including titanium dioxide) are optionally surface treated ([0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Pance teaches that the fillers (including titanium dioxide) may be surface treated with an organofunctional alkoxy silane coupling agent ([0064]), which reads on the claimed “surface treated with a silane.”
Regarding claim 13, Pance teaches that the fillers (including titanium dioxide) are optionally surface treated ([0064]), which would require at least some of the surface area of the fillers to be surface treated, and which therefore reads on the claimed “surface treated or coated over a part of its surface or over the entirety of its surface.”
Regarding claim 14, Pance teaches that the fillers (including titanium dioxide) may be surface treated with an organofunctional alkoxy silane coupling agent ([0064]), which reads on the claimed “surface treated or coated with a coating agent.”
Regarding claim 15, Pance teaches that the titanium dioxide may be in rutile form ([0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Pance teaches that the polymer materials may be exposed to high energy electron-beam radiation for the purpose of crosslinking the system ([0081]), which reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the polymer is crosslinked” because the instant Specification states that crosslinking of the instant composition is carried out using electron-beam crosslinking (see instant Specification at p. 8, lines 13-25).
Regarding claim 19, Pance teaches a molding process which involves mixing the aforementioned components together ([0084]), and further teaches towards the improvement of dispersion within the polymer matrix ([0064]), which reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the titanium dioxide is evenly distributed throughout the polymer.” Pance as modified further teaches the claimed limitations of particle size, filler amount, and melt flow rate as described in the rejection of claim 1, above. Pance additionally teaches a layer-by-layer manufacturing method ([0093]), and thus the multilayer spherical Luneburg lenses of Pance are produced sequentially with individual layers eaceh uniform in dielectric concentration.
Regarding claim 22, Pance teaches the injection molding of the dielectric volume ([0085]).
Regarding claim 23, Pance teaches the incorporation of polyolefins within the composition ([0058]), but differs from claim 23 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a cyclic olefin copolymer within the inventive composition. However, O’Connor further teaches the incorporation of a cyclic olefin copolymer as an equally suitable polymer matrix for its inventive thermoplastic composition ([0057]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate cyclic olefin copolymer within the formulation of Pance as taught by O’Connor because O’Connor recognizes cyclic olefin copolymer as a suitable equivalent for a dielectric-filled thermoplastic composition. It would have further been obvious to select a cyclic olefin copolymer having an MFR approximating that which is taught by PolyOne, as it is recognized as being suitable in similar processes involving similar materials.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance (WO 2018226657 A1, hereinafter referring to US 20200083610 A1 as the US equivalent) in view of ) in view of O’Connor (US 2019/0291364 A1) and PolyOne (Dow HDPE DMDA-8007 NT 7 Datasheet), and further in view of Siegel (US 2007/0199729 A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Pance as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Pance differs from claims 10-11 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of methacryl silanes or specifically methacryloxypropyltrimethoxy silane.
In the same field of endeavor, Siegel teaches a polymer nanocomposite ([0012]) containing metal oxide particles which may include titanium dioxide ([0013]) and thermoset or thermoplastic polymers which may include polyphenylene ether ([0015]).
Siegel teaches that organosilanes ([0022]) including methacryloxypropyl-tri-methoxysilane ([0023]), are useful for modifying the surface of the inventive nanoparticles, and teaches that the modifications are useful because they improve bonding at the interface between the filler and polymer matrix ([0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of tiling to incorporate methacryloxypropyltrimethoxy silane as taught by Siegel as the surface modifier in Pance for the purpose of improving the interfacial bonding between the titanium dioxide filler and the polymer matrix.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance (WO 2018226657 A1, hereinafter referring to US 20200083610 A1 as the US equivalent) in view of ) in view of O’Connor (US 2019/0291364 A1) and PolyOne (Dow HDPE DMDA-8007 NT 7 Datasheet), and further in view of Takada (US 2015/0056454 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pance as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Pance differs from claim 12 because it is silent with regard to the weight percentage of surface treatment on the titanium dioxide nanoparticles.
In the same field of endeavor, Takada teaches a resin composition containing titanium dioxide ([0012]), wherein the surface treatment may be contained in an amount of 0.5 to 15 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the total amount of the titanium dioxide component ([0055]). This range translates to 0.5 to 15 wt.% of surface treatment based on the weight of the surface treated titanium dioxide, and therefore overlaps the claimed range of “about 0.9 wt% to about 2 wt%, based on the weight of the surface treated titanium dioxide.” Takada further teaches that this preferable range of surface coating is useful because it suppresses the discoloration which may be caused by heat and light exposure ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the amount of surface treatment taught by Takada into the formulation of Pance for the purpose of suppressing the discoloration of the formula due to heat and/or light exposure.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance (WO 2018226657 A1, hereinafter referring to US 20200083610 A1 as the US equivalent) in view of ) in view of O’Connor (US 2019/0291364 A1) and PolyOne (Dow HDPE DMDA-8007 NT 7 Datasheet), and further in view of Sigworth (US 2007/0213238 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Pance as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Pance differs from claims 17 and because it is silent with regard to the usage, identity, and/or composition of a lubricant in the thermoplastic composite.
However, Sigworth teaches thermoplastic composites ([0003]) which may contain added lubricants, specifically polyethylene wax ([0042]), which reads on the claimed “polyolefin wax” at concentrations of between 0 and 1 weight percent ([0075]), which reads on the lubricant “in an amount of about 0.5% to about 5% by weight based on the total weight of the polymer composition.” Sigworth further teaches the usefulness of wax lubricants which perform their intended function (to reduce friction during processing) without being reactive towards other additives – a downside of other common lubricants ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the lubricant of Sigworth to the formulation of Pance for the purpose of reducing friction during processing without the downside of compatibility issues with other potential additives in the formulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. rejection of claims 1 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed February 13, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 7-17, 19, and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pance, O’Connor, and PolyOne, as described above.
Applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose the newly added limitation requiring a melt flow rate of over 100 g/10 min. However, in the newly supplied rejection, the claimed feature is made obvious in view of Pance, O’Conner, and PolyOne.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights