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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following grounds:
Applicant’s argument: Cheng does not disclose or exemplify compositions including a polyphenylene sulfide resin in combination with the specific laser direct structuring additive and laser breakable filler specified by independent claim 1. Cheng merely lists PPS among the possible thermodynamic resins.
Examiner’s response: While Cheng may not exemplify the exact combination of PPS, LDS and filler, it does not obviate the general teaching of the polyphenylene sulfide as an appropriate resin to use in paragraph 27 of the Cheng’s specification.
Applicant’s argument: Chen does not recognize that PPS are typically incompatible with LDS additives because of sulfur bonding, which is a problem addressed by the present application. The present application expressly addresses this incompatibility by demonstrating that combining PPS with the LDS additive and filler enables improved plating performance while maintaining low dielectric loss.
Examiner’s response: The examiner has considered the data presented in applicant’s specification. It is noted that Comparative example C3.1 appears to read on applicants’ invention: with 54.5% PPS, 5 % of hollow glass spheres and 5% of an LDS additive of copper chromite oxide and the LDS plating index is 0 indicating that no plating has occurred. Applicant’s argument of improved performance over the scope of the invention is not persuasive.
Newly submitted independent claim 16 is withdrawn because directed to an invention which also has the same technical feature of a PPS, a laser direct structuring additive and a laser breakable filler as recited in the restriction requirement dated September 11, 2025. This special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Cheng and would have been considered a third group in the restriction requirement.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the laser breakable filler….surface of the laser breakable filler” occurs prior to the recitation of the actual laser breakable filler. The examiner suggests moving the “from about 0.01 wt. % to about 50 wt. % of laser breakable filler” to before the wherein statement. The examiner also suggests amending ““from about 0.01 wt. % to about 50 wt. % of laser breakable filler” to “from about 0.01 wt. % to about 50 wt. % of a laser breakable filler” (bold/italics for emphasis).
Regarding claim 1, 3 and 5, the limitations which address laser breakable filler both before and after laser exposure renders the claim indefinite. Is applicant claiming the composition prior to laser irradiation where the laser breakable filler is intact? Or is applicant claiming the composition after it has been irradiated where the filler has been broken? As this is a compositional claim, additional clarification needs to be made as which state it is in. For the purpose of this examination and based on the general wording of the claims, the claims will be examined as the composition prior to the irradiation breaking of the filler (while the filler is intact).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He (CN 110655792, please refer to human translation of Example 2 for mapping and for machine translation for other citations).
Regarding claims 1-2, and 6-7, He teaches a low-dielectric composite material which contains 75 parts polyphenylene sulfide, 5 parts hollow glass microspheres (laser breakable filler) and 15 parts stannous thiocyanate (laser direct structuring additive). Example 2 has a total amount of components in the composite equal to 125.7 parts. Therefore, the amount of the polyphenylene sulfide can be calculated to be 59.6 wt. %, the amount of the microspheres can be calculated as 3.9 wt. % and the amount of the stannous thiocyanate can be calculated as 11.9 wt. %. Given that this composite has the exact recited ingredients and is for use in 5G communications with low signal loss (page 7), it would inherently have the recited low dissipation factor which results in low signal loss. Regarding the limitation of the deformation property, it is noted that as the laser breakable filler is the same hollow glass particle as that presently recited, it would inherently have the recited deformation property and characterization of the broken or open structures.
Regarding claim 3, regarding the limitation of the filler maintaining its integrity during processing and undergoes a physical change when subjected to laser irradiation, it is noted that as the laser breakable filler is the same hollow glass particle as that presently recited, it would inherently have the recited property.
Regarding claim 4, He teaches that the filler is a hollow glass sphere which reads on the recited structural limitations with a solid closed wall that defines an interior wherein the interior is hollow and, therefore the interior has a material having a density of less than that of the solid closed wall.
Regarding claim 5, regarding the limitation of the filler undergoes a physical change when subjected to laser irradiation, it is noted that as the laser breakable filler is the same hollow glass particle as that presently recited, it would inherently have the recited property.
Regarding claim 12, He teaches a composition free from copper salt or free from copper chromium oxide spinel (Example 2).
Regarding claim 13, He teaches that the composition further comprises an additive material such as glass fibers (Example 2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (WO 2018/130952) in view of Marx et al (US 2006/0105053).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-7, Cheng teaches a composition comprising:
15 to 95 wt. % of a polymer component such as polyphenylene sulfide ([0027])
1 to 30 wt. % of a laser direct structure ([0039])
And 3 to 70 wt. % ([0045]) of a filler which can be a hollow glass sphere ([0046])
These weights are based on the total weight of the composition and do not exceed 100%.
Cheng teaches that the composition exhibits a dissipation factor of less than 2.0x10-3 at frequencies of 1.1 to 3.0 GHz ([0099]). While Cheng does not elucidate the recited method of measurement (dielectric resonator), this is a property inherent in the composition and independent from the method of measurement, and therefore, the teaching of Cheng reads of the recited dissipation factor property.
While Cheng teaches that the filler is a hollow glass sphere, it fails to teach the recited deformation upon laser irradiation.
Marx teaches a polymeric composite which incorporates microspheres such as Glass Bubbles S60HS which has an average diameter of 30 microns (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the glass sphere of Cheng be the microsphere as taught by Marx. One would have been motivated to do so because it would enhance the physical characteristics of the composition (Marx, Abstract) and these are conventional microspheres used in polymer matrices (Marx, [0035]).
Regarding the limitation of the deformation property, it is noted that as the typical, conventional microsphere of the prior art has the exact characteristics (diameter, composition, thickness, etc.) as that presently recited, it would inherently have the recited deformation property and characterization of the broken or open structures.
Regarding claim 3, regarding the limitation of the filler maintaining its integrity during processing and undergoes a physical change when subjected to laser irradiation, it is noted that as the typical, conventional microsphere of the prior art has the exact characteristics (diameter, composition, thickness, etc.) as that presently recited, it would inherently have the recited property.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches that the filler is a hollow glass sphere which reads on the recited structural limitations with a solid closed wall that defines an interior wherein the interior is hollow and, therefore the interior has a material having a density of less than that of the solid closed wall.
Regarding claim 5, regarding the limitation that the filler undergoes a physical change when subjected to laser irradiation, it is noted that as the typical, conventional microsphere of the prior art has the exact characteristics (diameter, composition, thickness, etc.) as that presently recited, it would inherently have the recited property.
Regarding claims 8-11, Cheng teaches that the laser direct structuring additive comprises a metal oxide such as tin-antimony oxide ([0037]).
Regarding claim 12, while Cheng does mention copper-based compounds for the laser direct structuring additive ([0037]), it is noted that it is not mandatorily present and therefore can be free from these components (Examples).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng teaches that the composite further comprises additives such as a flow promoter ([0041]), light stabilizers ([0050]), etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights