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 1-5,8,9,11,12,17,19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110157173 in view of Kikuchi 2016/0108234.
CN’173 discloses a composition for laser direct structuring for good metal platability (paragraph 4). The reference exemplifies (#2) a blend of 65 parts polycarbonate, 15 parts PBT, 5 parts LDS additive, 2 parts maleated polyethylene, 1 part MBS, 15 parts flame retardant and 0.5 parts antioxidant. The composition is rated as V-O (see table 1). This is:
Parts ingredient %
65 polycarbonate (ie applicant’s “a”) 62.8
15 PBT (ie applicant’s “a”) 14.5
5 LDS 4.8
2 maleated PE (ie applicant’s “d”) 1.9
MBS (ie applicant’s “rubber-like polymer”) 1.0
Flame retardant 14.5
0.5 antioxidant 0.5
The identity of the LDS additive (paragraph 27) is merely said to be “commercially available” instead of applicant’s specific LDS additive.
Applicant’s specific LDS additive is known (see claim 42 of Kikuchi; paragraph 152’s aluminum doped ZnO). This particular LDS additive is said to give excellent platability (paragraph 185 of Kikuchi).
It would have been obvious to utilize Kikuchi’s LDS additive as CN’173’s LDS additive for the expected good platability.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Aluminum doped ZnO is applicant’s preferred LDS additive (see applicant’s table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 3.
The properties of applicant’s claims 9,19 and 20 are not reported. Given the proposed combination results in applicant’s preferred composition, the same properties would be expected to result.
Claims 1,3-5,8-12,17 and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110655792 in view of Kikuchi 2016/0108234.
CN’792 discloses a composition for laser direct structuring for good metal platability (paragraph 47). The reference exemplifies (#2) a blend of 75 parts polyphenylene sulfide, 5 parts glass spheres, 5 parts mica, 3 parts melamine, 3 parts aluminum diethylphosphite, 3 parts SEBS, 1 parts maleated low density polyethylene, 0.3 parts PETS, 0.4 parts antioxidants, 15 parts stannous thiocyanate and 15 parts glass fiber.
This is:
Parts ingredient %
75 PPS (ie applicant’s “a”) 59.7
5 glass spheres 4.0
5 mica 4.0
melamine 2.4
3 aluminum diethyl phosphite 2.4
3 SEBS 2.4
maleated LDPE(ie applicant’s ‘d”) 0.8
0.3 PETS 0.2
0.4 antioxidants 0.3
15 stannous thiocyanate 11.9
15 glass fibers 11.9
The stannous thiocyanate is apparently the LDS additive (paragraph 40) instead of applicant’s specific LDS additive. However, the reference suggests alternative LDS additives based on zinc oxides, aluminum oxide etc (paragraph 40).
Applicant’s specific LDS additive is known (see claim 42 of Kikuchi; paragraph 152’s aluminum doped ZnO). This particular LDS additive is said to give excellent platability (paragraph 185 of Kikuchi).
It would have been obvious to utilize Kikuchi’s LDS additive as CN’792’s LDS additive for the expected good platability.
The UL94 rating is not reported. Given the melamine is a flame retardant (paragraph 35), a rating of at least V2 would be expected.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
Aluminum doped ZnO is applicant’s preferred LDS additive (see applicant’s table 1) – meeting applicant’s claim 3.
The properties of applicant’s claims 9,19 and 20 are not reported. Given the proposed combination results in applicant’s preferred composition, the same properties would be expected to result.
The reference’s mica filler qualifies as applicant’s “c”. The total of “b” + “c” in the cited example is 15.9%. However, CN’792 (eg claim 1) permits up to 30 parts of the filler and 30 parts of the LDS. This meets the amounts of applicant’s claims 10 and 21.
Claims 1-5,8-12,17 and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi 2016/0108234 in view of Kanaya 2016/0160044.
Kikuchi exemplifies (#22) a blend of 100 parts polybutylene terephthalate, 6 parts LDS 23K, 50.3 parts glass fiber, 0.3 parts PED522 and 0.3 parts antioxidant. LDS 23K is applicant’s preferred “b” (see applicant’s table 1). This is:
parts ingredient %
100 PBT (ie applicant’s “a”) 63.7
6 LDS (ie applicant’s “b”) 3.8
glass fiber 32.1
0.3 PED522 0.2
0.3 antioxidant 0.2
The PED522 is misidentified as polyethylene oxide based. It is actually a polyethylene wax (see AD8 of table 1-2 of Kikuchi 2023/0374300; Martin 6860241’s table 1; Metz 6485558 col 5 line 48).
The PED522 is not a maleated polyethylene as required by applicant.
Such maleated polyethylenes are known. Kanaya (paragraph 101-103,124-129; 217) teaches that acid modified waxes such as HiWax1105A provides good impact strength, mold releasability etc relative to typical olefin waxes when used in reinforced thermoplastic compositions. HiWax1105A is applicant’s preferred “d” (see applicant’s table 1).
It would have been obvious to substitute HiWax1105A for Kikuchi’s PED522 to improve the composition’s properties.
The UL94 rating is not reported. Given the proposed combination results in all of applicant’s claimed ingredients, the same flame retardancy is expected.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
The resin may be polycarbonate in lieu of PBT (paragraph 29) – meeting applicant’s claim 2.
The properties of applicant’s claims 9,19 and 20 are not reported. Given the proposed combination results in applicant’s preferred composition, the same properties would be expected to result.
The amount of LDS additive may be as high as 40 parts per 100 resin (paragraph 26). Silicate filler (ie applicant’s “c”) may be present in amounts as high as 30 parts per 100 resin (paragraph 105). Non conductive metal oxide (ie applicant’s “c”) may be present in amounts as high as 80 parts per 100 resin (paragraph 77). Therefore, the total of “b” + “c” can meet the amounts of applicant’s claims 10 and 21.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that CN’173’s VO rating might not be measured on a 1.5mm sample and therefore might not meet this limitation.
The cited reference undoubtedly has some flame retardant rating @ 1.5mm. Applicant provides no explanation why the cited example of the reference would be expected to fall outside the VO-V2 rating.
Simply choosing to measure (and claim) flame retardancy on a sample thickness different from the sample thickness of the reference is not a legitimate argument against the rejection.
Even more importantly, applicant’s elected claims fail to require any flame retardant. If applicant’s claimed composition (without flame retardant) has a flame retardance rating of VO-V2, it is implausible that the similar reference example (containing a flame retardant) falls outside this rating range.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine CN’173 with Kikuchi.
On the contrary, the first office action clearly pointed out CN’173 calls for an LDS additive without specifying any particular LDS. Kikuchi’s particular LDS additive is said to give excellent platability (paragraph 185 of Kikuchi). Coincidentally, CN’173 desires a composition for laser direct structuring with good metal platability (paragraph 4). This is the motivation for the combination.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine CN’792 with Kikuchi to arrive at a high dielectric composition.
However, applicant’s claim 1 is not limited to high dielectric compositions. Secondly, it is not clear if applicant’s claims 9,19 and 20 dielectric limitations are measured with the same tests as CN’173.
CN’792 calls for LDS additives. Kikuchi’s particular LDS additive is said to give excellent platability (paragraph 185 of Kikuchi). Coincidentally, CN’792 desires a composition for laser direct structuring with good metal platability (paragraph 47). This is the motivation for the combination.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to replace Kikuchi’s oxidized polyethylene wax with Kanaya’s HiWax1105A (a maleated polyethylene wax).
Kanaya (paragraph 125) teaches that acid modification of the wax below 0.1meq/g does not improve rigidity and impact resistance. This coupled with the fact that Kanaya’s examples all include HiWax1105A leads one of ordinary skill to conclude that the acid modified waxes such as HiWax1105A are superior to the other waxes. This is the motivation for swapping the oxidized polyethylene wax with HiWax1105A.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 5/29/26
Prosecution Insights