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 without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2022, 09/21/2023, 04/02/2024, 05/08/2024 and 01/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 7, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for “a resin that comprises … SANTOPRENE® thermoplastic vulcanizate”
In claim 8, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for “the composition includes … SANTOPRENE® thermoplastic vulcanizate”
The use of the term SANTOPRENE®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 16 and 19: “the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at frequencies from about 40 gigahertz (GHz) to about 120 GHz and/or frequencies from about 60 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or frequencies from about 70 GHz to about 85 GHz; and/or the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at a frequency of about 77 GHz” in claims 16 and 19. While Fig. 26 and paragraph [0039] describe a means for achieving the reflection loss of the claim limitations through using a specific volume percent of carbon nanostructures (CNS), carbon black and silicon carbide the specification fails to clarify what compositions correspond to the specific ranges enumerated in claims 16 and 19.
Claim 18: “configured to be multifunctional with a first functionality of EMI mitigation and a second functionality of thermal management” in claim 18. While the specification recites ranges of thermal conductivity while discussing reflection loss at different frequency ranges, paragraphs [0064]-[0069], no connection is disclosed between those properties and how one would tailor both properties in a complementary way. The functional claim element works more as a goal to be achieved.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-8, 16 and 18-19 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.
Claims 7 and 8 contains the trademark/trade name SANTOPRENE®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe proprietary ratios of EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber in a thermoplastic matrix of polypropylene (PP) For examination purposes, EDPM is considered to be the equivalent to SANTOPRENE® thermoplastic vulcanizate.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Claim limitation “the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at frequencies from about 40 gigahertz (GHz) to about 120 GHz and/or frequencies from about 60 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or frequencies from about 70 GHz to about 85 GHz; and/or the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at a frequency of about 77 GHz” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While Fig. 26 and paragraph [0039] describe a means for achieving the reflection loss of the claim limitations through using a specific volume percent of carbon nanostructures (CNS), carbon black and silicon carbide the specification fails to clarify what compositions correspond to the specific ranges enumerated in claims 16 and 19.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitation “configured to be multifunctional with a first functionality of EMI mitigation and a second functionality of thermal management” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification recites ranges of thermal conductivity while discussing reflection loss at different frequency ranges, paragraphs [0064]-[0069], no connection is disclosed between those properties and how one would tailor both properties in a complementary way. The functional claim element works more as a goal to be achieved.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally claims 16 and 19 recite a broad range or limitation together with narrow ranges or limitations that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 16 and 19 recite the broad recitation of “frequencies from about 40 gigahertz (GHz) to about 120 GHz”, and the claim also recite “frequencies from about 60 GHz to about 90 GHz”, “frequencies from about 70 GHz to about 85 GHz” and “frequency of about 77 GHz” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claims are construed to recite a limitation of the range including 40 GHz to 120 GHz.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, as shown above, the “the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at frequencies from about 40 gigahertz (GHz) to about 120 GHz and/or frequencies from about 60 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or frequencies from about 70 GHz to about 85 GHz; and/or the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at a frequency of about 77 GHz” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the disclosure not does not provide adequate structure for performing the function.
Regarding claim 18, as shown above, the “configured to be multifunctional with a first functionality of EMI mitigation and a second functionality of thermal management” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the disclosure not does not provide adequate structure for performing the function.
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (MPEP 2181(IV)).
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) 1-6, 9-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Restuccia (US PG Pub. 20170301428).
Regarding claim 1, Restuccia discloses the composition for an electromagnetic interference (EMI) absorber ([0128] The present invention enables the preparation of radar-absorbing composite materials and structures), the composition comprising carbon nanotubes that are generally cylindrical with varying internal diameters and/or varying external diameters ([0063] The preferred nano-filler of the invention is the carbon nano-tube, particularly the multi-wall carbon nano-tube. Typically, carbon nano-tubes are tubular, strand-like structures having external diameters in the range of from about 0.4 nm to about 100 nm. Preferably the external diameter is no more than about 50 nm, preferably no more than about 25 nm, and in one embodiment no more than about 15 nm. Also see, [0184] NanoAmor® MWCNTs (internal diameter 5-10 nm; external diameter 50-100 nm).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Restuccia discloses wherein the carbon nanotubes comprise multi-walled carbon nanotubes; single-walled carbon nanotubes and/or carbon nanostructures comprising a branched network of crosslinked carbon nanotube structures ([0060] The term “conductive nano-filler”, as used herein, includes but is not limited to components referred to in the art as carbon nano-tubes (CNTs), including single-wall carbon nano-tubes (SWCNTs), double-walled carbon nanotubes (DWCNTs) and multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), carbon nano-particles, carbon nano-fibres, carbon nano-ropes, carbon nano-ribbons, carbon nano-fibrils, carbon nano-needles, carbon nano-sheets, carbon nano-rods, carbon nano-cones, carbon nano-scrolls and carbon nano-ohms, as well as the corresponding boron nitride components. In one embodiment, the term “conductive nano-filler” refers to carbon-based conductive nano-fillers, and includes but is not limited to the carbon-based components described hereinabove.).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Further Restuccia discloses wherein the carbon nanotubes are within an injection moldable resin ([0125] The composites described herein particularly include composites formed through the use of resin-soluble thermoplastic veils in a resin infusion process as described in US-2006/0252334, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. In one embodiment, the composite is manufactured through resin infusion wherein a support structure comprising structural reinforcement fibers (dry) and the resin-soluble thermoplastic veil element is placed into a bag, mold or tool to provide a preform, a curable resin matrix composition is injected/infused directly into the combined structural reinforcement fibers and veil, and then cured.) and further comprising carbon black within the injection moldable resin ([0060] The term “conductive nano-filler” further includes graphite nano-platelets or nano-dots, chopped/short carbon fibers, carbon black or a combination thereof with or without a partial or total metallic coating or other fullerene materials and combinations thereof.).
Regarding claim 6, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Further Restuccia discloses wherein the carbon nanotubes are within a resin comprising one or more of liquid silicone, urethane, polycarbonate, polyamide, polyester, polyolefin; polybutylene terephthalate, polypropylene, thermoplastic vulcanizate, thermoplastic elastomer, nylon, and/or a mixture including polyolefin ([0109]; Examiner’s note: the list of thermoplastic polymers in [0109] includes polyester and elastomers).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Further Restuccia discloses wherein the composition includes about 2 percent or less by weight of the carbon nanotubes (Table 2.A col. 9 NC700 MWCNYT (w/w %), 1.5 % is less than 2 %).
Regarding claims 10-12, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Further Restuccia discloses the composition further comprises one or more fillers and/or additives, the one or more fillers and/or additives comprising one or more pigments, plasticizers, process aids, flame retardants, extenders, tackifying agents, EMI absorbers, electrically-conductive fillers, and/or magnetic particles ([0109] The compositions described herein may further contain …for instance pre-formed particles such as, …, metal and metal alloy particles, rubber particles and rubber-coated glass beads, filler such as polytetrafluoroethylene,…, pigments/dyes, nucleating agents, wetting agents, viscosity modifiers/flow control agents, flame retardants, plasticizers, UV absorbers, antifungal compounds, tackifiers, inhibitors); wherein the carbon nanotubes comprise multi- walled carbon nanotubes that are hollow, generally cylindrical, and tubular, and wherein at least one of said multi-walled carbon nanotubes has an internal diameter and an external diameter different than an internal diameter and an external diameter, respectively, of at least one other of said multi-walled carbon nanotubes ([0184] NanoAmor® MWCNTs (internal diameter 5-10 nm; external diameter 50-100 nm); and wherein the carbon nanotubes comprise multi- walled carbon nanotubes, and wherein at least one of said multi-walled carbon nanotubes has a different number of walls than at least one other of said multi-walled carbon nanotubes ([0184] NanoAmor® MWCNTs (internal diameter 5-10 nm; external diameter 50-100 nm, Examiner’s note: It is well known in the art that the number of walls for a multi-wall carbon nanotube scales with the diameter.).
Regarding claim 17, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Further Restuccia an automotive vehicle component ([0129] The present invention is applicable to the manufacture of components suitable for use in transport applications (… and including the automotive,) injection molded from the composition of claim 1 such that the automotive vehicle component has a monolithic, single-piece construction ([0125] describes the various injection molding techniques).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Restuccia (US PG Pub 20170301428) in view of Nagamune (US PG Pub. 20180370197).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1 wherein the carbon nanotubes are within a resin ([0010] The present invention relates to dispersions of conductive nano-fillers (particularly carbon-based conductive nano-fillers) in polymeric matrices (particularly epoxy resin systems) and composites produced therefrom, and methods for their production.). Restuccia does not teach that the resin comprises polypropylene and santoprene® thermoplastic vulcanizate, which for examination purposes is equivalent to the resin comprises polypropylene and EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer).
However, Nagamune teaches a composition for an EMI absorber ([0024] A presently disclosed electromagnetic wave absorption material contains fibrous carbon nanostructures and an insulating material) the resin ([0090] As the insulating material, an insulating polymer is preferably used. The insulating polymer may be any of: (a) thermoplastic resin and/or thermosetting resin; and (b) rubber and/or elastomer.) comprises polypropylene and EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber ([0096] The rubber and/or elastomer included in the insulating polymer is not limited, and may be known rubber and/or elastomer having insulation property. Examples of such rubber and/or elastomer include: …ethylene-propylene rubber (EPR, EPDM)) in a thermoplastic matrix of polypropylene ([0094] The thermoplastic resin and/or thermosetting resin included in the insulating polymer is not limited, and may be known thermoplastic resin and/or thermosetting resin having insulation property. Examples of such thermoplastic resin and/or thermosetting resin include…polypropylene). wherein the composition includes EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber in a thermoplastic matrix of polypropylene (PP) and between three to eight percent carbon nanotubes ([0086] In the presently disclosed electromagnetic wave absorption material, the content C of the fibrous carbon nanostructures,… in the case where the fibrous carbon nanostructures the content C is 0.3 parts by mass or more and 0.8 parts by mass or less.).
Restuccia and Nagamune are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of CNT EMI material technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EMI absorber composition of Restuccia by substituting the resin of Nagamune to yield a predictable result of a means to tune the required mechanical properties of strength/durability versus flexibility through adjusting the ratios of the (a) thermoplastic resin and/or thermosetting resin; and (b) rubber and/or elastomer as noted by Nagamune ([0092] Moreover, in the case where the insulating polymer (a) is used, the electromagnetic wave absorption material has excellent strength and durability. In the case where the insulating polymer (b) is used as the insulating material, the electromagnetic wave absorption material has excellent flexibility. Thus, the flexibility or strength of the electromagnetic wave absorption material is adjustable depending on the intended use of the electromagnetic wave absorption material, so that the versatility of the electromagnetic wave absorption material can be enhanced.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Restuccia (US PG Pub 20170301428) as modified by Nagamune (US PG Pub. 20180370197) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fischer (US Pat. 3758643).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Restuccia as modified by Nagamune teaches the composition of claim 7, accordingly the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated. Restuccia further teaches the composition includes about 0.3 volume percent or less of the carbon nanotubes ([0031] The composition of the first aspect of the invention preferably comprises the conductive nano-filler (CNF) in an amount such that the mass fraction w(CNF) is from about 0.1% to about 30%). Restuccia as modified by Nagamune fails to teach wherein the composition includes about 10 volume percent or less of the santoprene thermoplastic vulcanizate and about 89 volume percent or more of the polypropylene.
However, Fischer teaches a thermoplastic blends of PP/EPDM(Abstract; Thermoplastic blends of partially cured monoolefin copolymer rubber (such as EPM or EPDM rubber) with a polyolefin resin (such as polypropylene)) with the composition includes about 10 volume percent or less of the santoprene thermoplastic vulcanizate and about 89 volume percent or more of the polypropylene (col. 2, line 67 - col. 3, line 5; The relative proportions of partially cured mono-olefin copolymer rubber and polyolefin plastic employed in the blends of the invention may vary widely, for example from 10 to 90 parts by weight of partially cured mono-olefin copolymer rubber and correspondingly 90 to 10 parts of polyolefin plastic, depending on the characteristics desired in the blends.).
Restuccia, Nagamune and Fischer are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of thermoplastic polymer blends technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Restuccia as modified by Nagamune by including the PP/EPDM ratios of Fischer to yield a predictable result of a blend of PP/EPDM that has good physical properties and is good for extrusions as observed by Fischer (Abstract; The blends are used to make molded or extruded articles which have good physical properties without requiring vulcanization; preferred blends have the characteristics of thermoplastic elastomers.).
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Restuccia (US PG Pub. 20170301428) in view of Shah (US PG Pub. 20100271253).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Restuccia does not disclose wherein the EMI absorber comprises a pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures and further comprising a low dielectric loss, low dielectric constant material disposed over the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures, wherein the low dielectric loss, low dielectric constant material defines a planarization layer having an inverted pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures that interleaves with the one or more EMI absorbing structures such that the one or more EMI absorbing structures and the planarization layer collectively have a generally flat configuration and/or such that the planarization layer defines a planar surface over the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures.
However, Shah teaches a CNT composite for EMI shielding ( [0061] Radar absorbing composite materials of the present invention include a matrix material to form the composite with the CNT-infused fiber material.) wherein the EMI absorber comprises a pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures (Fig. 9) and further comprising a low dielectric loss, low dielectric constant material disposed over the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures ([0098] Referring now to FIG. 9, there is illustrated schematically a coating layer of fiber material 210 with infused CNTs disposed on a top surface 355 of a composite material 350. Composite 350 may take the form of a conventional composite glass or glass-reinforced plastic, for example. In another configuration, composite 350 may take the form of a carbon fiber composite structure or a carbon fiber reinforced plastic structure. Composite 350, on its own, is generally not suitable for use in applications requiring good radar absorbing or signature control characteristics.), wherein the low dielectric loss, low dielectric constant material defines a planarization layer having an inverted pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures that interleaves with the one or more EMI absorbing structures such that the one or more EMI absorbing structures and the planarization layer collectively have a generally flat configuration and/or such that the planarization layer defines a planar surface over the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures ([0088] FIG. 14 shows another exemplary RAM panel 1400. RAM panel 1400 represents a cross section of a multi-layered CNT-infused fiber based radar absorbing material. Such embodiments use varying amounts of CNTs in each successive layer to induce internal reflection and EM wave (radar) dissipation of multiple frequencies using one panel structure. RAM panel 1400 has a first layer 1410, which is exposed to the incident EM wave, intermediate layer 1420, and a second layer 1430. It will be apparent to one skilled in the art that intermediate layer 1420 can exist as any number of multiple intermediate layers with increasing CNT content moving from the first layer to the second layer. Continuing in this fashion, first layer 1410 has a dielectric constant similar to air to allow for wave transmittance).
Restuccia and Shah are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of CNT EMI material technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EMI shielding of Restuccia by including the structures and planarization of Shar to yield a predictable result of improving the EMI absorption through the use of structures ([0098] However, by applying a coating or layer 230 of fiber material 210 having CNTs infused thereon, onto surface 355 of composite 350, the combination (i.e., the combination of composite 350 and CNT-infused fibers) exhibits significantly enhanced radar absorbing or signature control characteristics.) and low dielectric loss materials ([0029] In particular, near the surface of a composite, CNT densities can be relatively low creating a material that has a dielectric constant similar to air or a refractive index close to air creating a black body-like structure where radar reflectance is substantially minimized. That is, in order to suppress reflection, the refractive index of the object can be close to that of air) as noted by Shah.
Regarding claim 16, Restuccia as modified by Shah teaches the EMI absorber of claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Restuccia discloses the claimed invention except for teaching the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at frequencies from about 40 gigahertz (GHz) to about 120 GHz and/or frequencies from about 60 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or frequencies from about 70 GHz to about 85 GHz; and/or the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at a frequency of about 77 GHz. However, Restuccia does teach the same material as Applicant (the resin and CNT composition). As such, it stands that the same material has the same functionality of operation of reflection loss at the recited frequencies. In any case, if not implicit by the teachings of Restuccia, the instant claim is obvious insofar as a skilled artisan may modify the material selection as necessary to be operable with the recited reflection loss in the recited frequencies for the benefit of modulating the device characteristic or device performance as per application requirement.
Regarding claim 18, Restuccia discloses the composition of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Restuccia does not disclose a thermal management and EMI mitigation material comprising the composition of claim 1 and configured to be multifunctional with a first functionality of EMI mitigation and a second functionality of thermal management. Shah teaches a thermal management and EMI mitigation material configured to be multifunctional with a first functionality of EMI mitigation and a second functionality of thermal management ([0057] CNTs can be used for thermal and/or electrical conductivity applications, in addition to radar absorption.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Restuccia by including the thermal management aspects of Shah to yield a predictable result of improving the thermal properties in addition to the EMI properties of the EMI material as noted by Shah ([0094] Incorporation of CNTs in carbon fiber composites and glass fiber composites effectively enhances radar wave absorptivity of the resulting composite materials. In the case of glass fiber composites, incorporated CNTs also improve thermal and electrical conductivities of the resulting composite materials.)
Regarding claim 19, Restuccia teaches an electromagnetic interference (EMI) absorber comprising includes about 2 percent or less by weight of the carbon nanotubes nanotubes (Table 2.A col. 9 NC700 MWCNT (w/w %), 1.5 % is less than 2 %). Restuccia discloses the claimed invention except for teaching the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at frequencies from about 40 gigahertz (GHz) to about 120 GHz and/or frequencies from about 60 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or frequencies from about 70 GHz to about 85 GHz; and/or the EMI absorber is configured to be operable with greater than 15 decibels of reflection loss at a frequency of about 77 GHz and the absorber is composed of a pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures, the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures.
Restuccia does teach the same material as Applicant (the resin and CNT composition). As such, it stands that the same material has the same functionality of operation of reflection loss at the recited frequencies. In any case, if not implicit by the teachings of Restuccia, the instant claim is obvious insofar as a skilled artisan may modify the material selection as necessary to be operable with the recited reflection loss in the recited frequencies for the benefit of modulating the device characteristic or device performance as per application requirement.
Restuccia does not teach the absorber is composed of a pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures, the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures. As noted above with regards to claim 9, Shah teaches an EMI absorber comprising a pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EMI shielding of Restuccia by including the structures and planarization of Shah to yield a predictable result of improving the EMI absorption through the use of structures ([0098] However, by applying a coating or layer 230 of fiber material 210 having CNTs infused thereon, onto surface 355 of composite 350, the combination (i.e., the combination of composite 350 and CNT-infused fibers) exhibits significantly enhanced radar absorbing or signature control characteristics.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Restuccia (US PG Pub. 20170301428) as modified by Shah (US PG Pub. 20100271253) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kitahara (JP 2017171773 – machine translation).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kitahara Fig. 1B
Regarding claim 14, Restuccia as modified by Shah teach the EMI absorber of claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Restuccia as modified by Shah does not teach wherein the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures comprises a pattern of rectangular pyramidal structures including rectangular bases configured such that the rectangular bases of adjacent rectangular pyramidal structures contact each other substantially without any gaps or spaced distances between the rectangular bases of the adjacent rectangular pyramidal structures.
However, Kitahara teaches a patterned ([0015] [FIG. 1] 1A of the figure is a schematic perspective view for schematically explaining one of Examples in which the expanded beads molded article of the present invention is formed into a pyramid shape (quadrangular pyramid shape) and the expanded beads molded article is used as a radio wave absorbing body.) EMI absorbing composite ([0031] In a case where the expanded beads molded article of the present invention is used as a radio wave absorber... Examples of the inorganic material exhibiting radio wave absorption performance include carbons such as conductive carbon black, graphite, graphene, carbon nanotubes,) wherein the pattern of one or more EMI absorbing structures comprises a pattern of rectangular pyramidal structures including rectangular bases configured such that the rectangular bases of adjacent rectangular pyramidal structures contact each other substantially without any gaps or spaced distances between the rectangular bases of the adjacent rectangular pyramidal structures (Fig. 1B).
Restuccia, Shah and Kitahara are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of resins with carbon filler-based EMI suppression technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Restuccia as modified by Shah by including the pyramid pattern of Kitahara to yield a predictable result of improved shielding by presenting a greater area over which the interfering radio waves can be intercepted since there is more surface area exposed than in the flat planar case as is observed by Kitahara ([0022] For example, in the radio wave absorber 1 having a pyramid shape shown in FIG. 1, when the top of the pyramid shape is the end on the radio wave arrival side, the bottom of the pyramid shape is the other end, and the expanded beads molded article is cut along a plane having a normal line along the direction from the top toward the bottom to view the cut surface, the area of the cut surface increases from the top toward the bottom.).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150005411 discloses a resin composition for electromagnetic interference shielding, the resin comprising: (a) 100 parts by weight of a resin; based on 100 parts by weight of the resin, (b) 0.1 to 15 parts by weight of a carbon nanotube surface-modified in a condition of the absence of oxidant; and (c) 1 to 40 parts by weight of a carbon compound, a metal, a metal compound, or a mixture thereof. The resin composition for electromagnetic interference shielding, comprising a carbon hydride composite, is specifically useful in an electronic control unit material for weight reduction of car.
US 20100294558 discloses an electromagnetic interference suppression sheet comprising an electromagnetic interference suppression layer that contains a soft magnetic powder and an organic binder, and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer having a structured surface with the side opposite the structured surface being laminated in contact with the electromagnetic interference suppression layer, wherein a continuous groove reaching to the outer perimeter of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is formed in the structured surface.
US 20100188833 discloses a composite material for electromagnetic interference shielding is provided. The composite material comprises a stack including at least two electrically conductive nanoscale fiber films, which are spaced apart from one another by at least one insulating gap positioned between the at least two nanoscale fiber films. The stack is effective to provide a substantial multiple internal reflection effect. An electromagnetic interference shielded apparatus and a method for shielding an electrical circuit from electromagnetic interference is provided
US 20090298990 discloses an electromagnetic wave shielding thermoplastic resin composition and a plastic article including the same. The electromagnetic wave shielding thermoplastic resin composition comprises about 100 parts by weight of a thermoplastic resin comprising a polycarbonate resin, a polyester resin, or a combination thereof, about 1 to about 30 parts by weight of stainless steel fiber, and about 0.01 to about 10 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646