CTFR 17/927,686 CTFR 87956 DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s amendment dated 11 February 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action. 12-256 AIA New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 11 February 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 4, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2006/0247352 (“Bormashenko”) . As to claim 1, Bormashenko teaches resin compositions for EMI shielding (electromagnetic wave absorbing). As one example of many, Example 8 of Bormashenko teaches a composite of LDPE. Bormashenko teaches an article of this material has a resistivity of 10 8 ohm cm (units of volume resistivity) and an imaginary part of dielectric constant of 24 at 10 GHz (para. 0030), which is within the recited range. The product of log conductivity and imaginary part of dielectric constant is calculated as 168, which is within the recited range. Bormashenko does not state the temperature. However, given that no temperature is provided, it is reasonable to presume the aforementioned measurements were made at ambient temperatures, which suggests the material has the recited characteristics at 25 degrees C. Furthermore, while Bormashenko does not state that the article is a molded body, this is construed as a product by process limitation. See MPEP 2113. The film of Bormashenko are considered to be equivalent to that produced by molding. As to claim 2, Bormashenko, example 8, teaches a real part of dielectric constant at 10 GHz of 20.2. As to claim 4, the composition of example 8 of Bormashenko is LDPE, a thermoplastic resin, a metal alloy, an inorganic filler, and carbon black, a carbon material. As to claim 9, Bormashenko teaches the EMI shielding is for cellular phone systems (para. 0003), an electronic component. As to claim 19, Bormashenko does not discuss the performance of a molded body of 0.5 mm. However, Bormashenko teaches compositions having the required resistivity and imaginary part of dielectric constant, and as such, it is reasonable to conclude these would have the wave absorption performance as recited when molded into that shape . 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Zhou et al., “Improved thermal conductivity of epoxy composites using a hybrid multi-walled carbon nanotube/micro-SiC filler,” Carbon 48, 1171-1176 (2010) (“Zhou”) . As to claim 1, Zhou teaches a resin composition having an epoxy resin, silicon carbide and carbon nanotubes (abstract). Zhou does not discuss the imaginary part of dielectric constant, or the relationship between the imaginary part of dielectric constant and volume resistivity. However, Zhou teaches compositions of bisphenol type epoxy resin, silicon carbide, and carbon nanotubes (section 2.1), which are an epoxy resin, a thermosetting resin, inorganic filler, and carbon material, and includes 5 wt % of the carbon nanotubes, and 55 wt % of the silicon carbide. These amounts are within the amounts of each of the respective components as set forth in applicant’s specification (see specification, paras. 0037, 0046, showing ranges for these materials including the amounts taught by Zhou). For this reason, it is reasonable to infer that the composition of Zhao meets the recited characteristic inherently. As to claim 2, Zhou does not discuss the real part of complex dielectric constant. However, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Zhou teaches the same type of bisphenol A epoxy resin, silicon carbide, and carbon material, in amounts in the same range as applicant’s specification (see specification, paras. 0037, 0046, showing ranges for these materials including the amounts taught by Zhou). For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude that the composition in a molded body meets the limitation. As to claim 3, Zhou does not discuss the thermal expansion coefficient. However, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Zhou teaches the same type of bisphenol A epoxy resin, silicon carbide, and carbon material, in amounts in the same range as applicant’s examples. For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude that the composition in a molded body meets the limitation. As to claims 4, 5, 7, and 8, Zhou teaches epoxy resin, which is a thermosetting material (Sec. 2.3, mixing with curing agent and curing with heat), silicon carbide, an inorganic filler and carbon nanotube. As to claim 10, Zhou teaches an epoxy resin composition containing carbon nanotubes and silicon carbide (abstract). Epoxy resin is cured with heat (see 2.1, 2.3, teaching curing agent and curing under heat), and is thus thermosetting. Zhou does not discuss the imaginary part of dielectric constant, or the relationship between the imaginary part of dielectric constant and volume resistivity. However, Zhou teaches compositions of bisphenol type epoxy resin, silicon carbide, and carbon nanotubes (section 2.1), which are an epoxy resin, a thermosetting resin, inorganic filler, and carbon material, and includes 5 wt % of the carbon nanotubes, and 55 wt % of the silicon carbide. These amounts are within the amounts of each of the respective components as set forth in applicant’s specification (see specification, paras. 0037, 0046, showing ranges for these materials including the amounts taught by Zhou). For this reason, it is reasonable to infer that the composition of Zhao meets the recited characteristic inherently. For this reason, it is also reasonable to presume a molded body is a wave absorber. As to claim 11, Zhou teaches silicon carbide as the only inorganic filler excluding the nanotubes (see Fig. 3, showing epoxy with only MWCNTs and micro-SiC). As to claim 12, Zhou teaches 5 wt % of the nanotubes (abstract, Fig. 3). As to claim 18, Zhou teaches a molded body of the composition (sec. 2.3). While Zhou does not discuss whether it is a radio wave absorber, it is composed of the same materials, and therefore presumed to meet the intended use. As to claims 19 and 20, Zhou does not discuss the attenuation. However, given that Zhou teaches a composition of the same materials as recited, it is reasonable to presume that the molded body at the recited thickness would meet the minimum attenuation . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., “Improved thermal conductivity of epoxy composites using a hybrid multi-walled carbon nanotube/micro-SiC filler,” Carbon 48, 1171-1176 (2010) (“Zhou”) . As to claim 9, the discussion of Zhou with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference. Zhou teaches a molded body of the composition (section 2.3). While Zhou does not exemplify the molded body in an electronic component, Zhou teaches that the use of epoxy resins having energy dissipations are useful in electronics (section 1, p. 1171), and as such, the use of such a molded body in electronic components is an obvious end use suggested by Zhou. As to claim 17, the discussion of Zhou with respect to claim 10 is incorporated by reference.. Zhou teaches a molded body of the composition (section 2.3). While Zhou does not exemplify the molded body in an electronic component, Zhou teaches that the use of epoxy resins having energy dissipations are useful in electronics (section 1, p. 1171), and as such, the use of such a molded body in electronic components is an obvious end use suggested by Zhou . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Zhou does not teach the recited additional characteristics in the composition . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments against Bormashenko stating that the materials used are different and relies on a different mechanism of wave absorption. This is not persuasive because Bormashenko teaches the same properties as recited. Neither the specific materials nor the mechanism of absorption are in the claims rejected over Bormashenko. Applicant’s arguments against Zhou are unpersuasive, because Zhou teaches compositions of the same materials used by applicant, which increase resistivity and imaginary component of dielectric constant. If there is some specific other aspect required to obtain the desired characteristics, that should be claimed, in order to distinguish over Zhou. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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 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. /KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764 Application/Control Number: 17/927,686 Page 2 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 17/927,686 Page 3 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 17/927,686 Page 4 Art Unit: 1764 Application/Control Number: 17/927,686 Page 5 Art Unit: 1764
Prosecution Insights