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
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 1-5,8,9,11,12,15-17,19,20,23 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi 2016/0108234 in view of Kanaya 2016/0160044.
Kikuchi exemplifies (#15-17) a blend of 56.9 parts S-300F, 43.2 parts AT-08, 11.5 parts 23K, 21.6 parts T595 glass fiber (ie applicant’s reinforcement), 5.8 parts CPK, 4.3 parts elastomer, 0.1 parts stabilizer, 0.1 parts antioxidant and 0.4 parts VPG861 mold release agent.
The S-300F and AT-08 are polycarbonate and ABS (paragraph 144,145) which collectively meet applicant’s thermoplastic resin. The 23K (paragraph 152) is aluminum doped ZnO which is applicant’s preferred laser direct additive (see applicant’s table 1-1).
The VPG861 mold release agent (paragraph 165) is pentaerythritol tetrastearate instead of applicant’s maleated olefin polymer. Kikuchi (paragraph 127) suggests polyethylene waxes in lieu of pentaerythritol tetrastearate but does not suggest maleating the polyethylene wax.
Kanaya (abstract; paragraph 101-103) teaches the addition of minor amounts of a functionalized olefin wax improves reinforced thermoplastic compositions. The composition may be a glass fiber reinforced polycarbonate/ABS blend (Kanaya’s table 2). The functionalized olefin wax may be acid functionalized to a concentration of 0.1-6meq/g (paragraph 125). Maleic anhydride (paragraph 129) may be used for the acid functionalization.
The acid value of the wax would be:
0.1-6meq/g x 1meq KOH/eq acid x 56.1mg KOH/meq KOH = 5.6-336mgKOH/g
This overlaps and renders obvious applicant’s range
It would have been obvious to substitute a maleated olefin wax for (or include with) pentaerythritol tetrastearate in Kikuchi’s PC/ABS/glass fiber composition for the expected improvement.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The polycarbonate may be based on tetramethyl BPA (paragraph 32 of Kikuchi) – meeting applicant’s claim 4 and 5.
The glass fiber of Kikuchi’s cited example is T-595. This fiber’s permittivity is not reported. However, Kikichi’s general teachings regarding the glass fiber (paragraph 82) corresponds closely to that of applicant (paragraph 71 of spec). Furthermore, Kikuchi (paragraph 150) exemplifies the use of T-187 which is applicant’s preferred glass fiber (table 1-1). For these reasons, applicant’s permittivity of claim 8 would is expected to be met.
Kikuchi’s cited examples employ 11.5 pph of the LDS additive. However, Kikuchi (paragraph 26) suggests up to 40pph. Any amount within Kikuchi’s broad teachings would have been obvious – meeting applicant’s claim 11.
Given the cited examples utilizes glass fibers and thermoplastic resin in applicant’s amounts, applicant’s permittivity and loss tangent of claim 12 would presumably be inherently met.
The ratio of Kikuchi’s 23K to mold release agent is 11.5:0.4 or 29 which meets applicant’s claim 19.
The Kikuchi’s composition is useful in portable electronics (paragraph 139) – meeting applicant’s claims 20 and 23.
Claims 1-5,8-12,16,19,20,23 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi WO2020/129472 in view of Kanaya 2016/0160044.
Kikuchi exemplifies (#5) a blend of 50.6 parts polycarbonate, 4.4 parts MBS, 5.6 parts LDS1, 38.9 parts TiO2, 11.1 parts glass fiber (ie applicant’s reinforcement) and 0.6 parts additives.
The polycarbonate and MBS collectively meet applicant’s thermoplastic resin. LDS1 (table 1) is based on tin and antimony meeting applicant’s laser direct structuring additive.
Based on 100 parts of the total resins this becomes:
#5 pph
Polycarbonate + MBS 55 100
LDS1 5.6 10
TiO2 38.9 72
Glass fiber 11.1 20
Additives 0.6 1
This example lacks the maleated polyolefin of applicant’s claim.
Kanaya (abstract; paragraph 101-103) teaches the addition of minor amounts (eg 0.01-10) of a functionalized olefin wax improves reinforced thermoplastic compositions. The composition may be a glass fiber reinforced polycarbonate/MBS blend (Kanaya’s table 2). The functionalized olefin wax may be acid functionalized to a concentration of 0.1-6meq/g (paragraph 125). Maleic anhydride (paragraph 129) may be used for the acid functionalization.
The acid value of the wax would be:
0.1-6meq/g x 1meq KOH/eq acid x 56.1mg KOH/meq KOH = 5.6-336mgKOH/g
This overlaps and renders obvious applicant’s range
It would have been obvious to include a maleated olefin wax in Kikuchi’s PC/MBS/glass fiber composition for the expected improvement.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The polycarbonate may be based on tetramethyl BPA (page 7 line 12 of Kikuchi) – meeting applicant’s claim 4 and 5.
The glass fiber of Kikuchi’s cited example is T-187 (table 1) which is applicant’s preferred glass fiber (see applicant’s table 1-1). Presumably applicant’s permittivity of claim 8 would is met.
Kikuchi’s cited examples employ 10 pph of the LDS additive. However, Kikuchi (abstract) suggests up to 80%. Any amount within Kikuchi’s broad teachings would have been obvious – meeting applicant’s claims 10,11 and 29.
Given the cited examples utilizes glass fibers and thermoplastic resin in applicant’s amounts, applicant’s permittivity and loss tangent of claim 12 would presumably be inherently met.
The ratio of Kikuchi’s LDS1 to functionalized wax would meet applicant’s claim 19 when low amounts of wax (eg 0.01-1 parts) or high amounts of LDS were employed.
The Kikuchi’s composition is useful in mobile phones (page 1 line 16) – meeting applicant’s claims 20 and 23.
Claims 25,27 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi WO2020/129472 in view of Kanaya 2016/0160044.
Kikuchi exemplifies (#5) a blend of 50.6 parts polycarbonate, 4.4 parts MBS, 5.6 parts LDS1, 38.9 parts TiO2, 11.1 parts glass fiber (ie applicant’s reinforcement) and 0.6 parts additives.
The polycarbonate and MBS collectively meet applicant’s thermoplastic resin. LDS1 (table 1) is based on tin and antimony meeting applicant’s laser direct structuring additive.
Based on 100 parts of the total resins this becomes:
#5 pph
Polycarbonate + MBS 55 100
LDS1 5.6 10
TiO2 38.9 72
Glass fiber 11.1 20
Additives 0.6 1
This example lacks the maleated polyolefin of applicant’s claim and utilizes less LDS than required.
However, Kikuchi (abstract) suggests up to 80% LDS. Any amount within Kikuchi’s broad teachings would have been obvious
Kanaya exemplifies (#1-3) the addition of minor amounts (ie 0.5-3) of Hi-Wax1105A to glass fiber reinforced polycarbonate/MBS blends. Hi-Wax1105A is applicant’s preferred maleated polyethylene wax (see applicant’s WAX 1 of table 1-1). Kanaya explains (paragraph 101-103) the oxygen group modification provides the polyethylene wax high affinity for the resin (ie the polycarbonate). Kanaya’s data demonstrates improved impact strength when including the Hi-Wax1105A.
It would have been obvious to include Hi-Wax1105A in Kikuchi’s PC/MBS/glass fiber composition for the expected improvement.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kanaya does not teach an acid value of 0.5-20mgKOH/g for the maleated olefin polymer.
This is not convincing. Kanaya’s functionalized olefin wax may be acid functionalized to a concentration of 0.1-6meq/g (paragraph 125). This appears to overlap applicant’s acid value.
Applicant argues that Kikuchi WO2020/129472 does suggest the high amounts of LDS of claim 25.
This is not convincing. Kikuchi (abstract) teaches his composition can be 0.1-80% LDS and 20-90% thermoplastic resin. Applicant’s 91.1-150 parts LDS per 100 parts thermoplastic would be 47%/53% LDS/resin to 60%/40% LDS/resin – well within Kikuchi’s teachings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 12/31/25