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 .
The 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments.
The double patenting rejection has been overcome with the submission of a proper terminal disclaimer.
The 102 rejection over Peng has been withdrawn in view of applicants amendments.
The 103 rejections have been withdrawn and re-written/combined in view of applicants amendments. No new references have been cited/used.
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) 1-4, 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng-US patent 10,752,771 in view of Ma et al-CN-107365480.
Peng discloses a composition comprising a) 15-80 wt% of a polymer resin, which can be PCT polyester (see column 5 line 1) and it copolymers, such as PETG, PCTG and PCTA (column 5 lines 3-35), b) 10-50 wt% of a low Dk glass fiber which as a Dk of less than 5 at 1 GHz and a Df of less than about 0.002 at 1 GHz (see column 15, lines 46-56) and c) 0.1-10 wt % of an impact modifier which can be a triblock copolymer of ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate (which reads on the now claimed “copolymer of ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate”) as described in column 17 lines 43-47, d) additional additives such as 0.1-1.0 pbw of a mold release agent (see column 20 lines 9-17, and wherein the composition exhibits a Df of less than 0.01 at 1.9 GHz (see column 3 1* paragraph). The reference further teaches use of its composition for cellular antenna devices, see column 23, line 9.
The Peng reference fails to prefer the PCT polyester resin, and fails to disclose the additional impact modifiers of claims 7 and 8.
Ma discloses similar NMT resin materials, containing glass fibers, and a flexibilizer. Most importantly, it specifically teaches that using PCT polyester instead of conventional resins such as PBT PPS and PA6 will give products with lower Dk constant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have specifically selected the PCT polyester as the resin material in Peng to lower Dk constant of the invention of Peng, as taught by Ma.
With respect to the properties of claim 1, formally present in claim 13, it is the office’s position that such properties would be inherent to the above suggested modified Peng reference since the reproduced/obvious composition would be the same as is claimed. Reviewing the specification reveals that reproducing the claimed composition will result in the claimed properties, i.e. meaning that nothing special or unique is performed to the composition to achieve the claimed properties.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng-US patent 10,752,771 in view of Ma et al-CN-107365480, in further view of Pecorini et al- WO-00/23520.
Peng in view of Ma is applied here as above. The modified Peng fails to disclose additional impact modifiers.
Pecorini discloses a polyester molding material, one of which can be PCT, which contain 0.5-20 wt% of an impact modifier (IM), which can be a terpolymer of ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate (Impact modifier D) or a copolymer of ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate, Impact modifier E in the examples, see page 22 lines 17 and 20. The reference further teaches blend/mixtures of additional impact modifiers, specifically in the examples, to further enhance and control the impact properties, wherein each IM is present between 2 and 6 wt %. Page 10 further discloses the other impact modifiers that can be used, those being SBS and SEBS.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified Peng in view of Ma composition to include or further include a mixture of well known impact modifiers, such as SBS/SEBS, to improve and manipulate the impact properties of the final product in an obvious manner, as taught by Pecorini.
Response to arguments
First, applicants argue that the claimed “ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate copolymer” is distinct from the ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl acrylate terpolymer of Peng. The examiner disagrees. The definition of a “copolymer” is a large molecule made from two or more different types of monomers. Peng discloses just that and contains the claimed ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate monomers, and fails to exclude any other monomers that maybe present.
Applicants further argue Ma independently and state that bonding strength or dielectric constants are not discussed. First, the motivation to combine references does not have to be the same as applicants’. Second, the bonding strength is believed to be inherent as described above. Third, Dk is the dielectric constant, and Ma does discuss at length, and states the use of PCT over other conventional polyesters shows improvement in it.
Applicants argue unexpected bonding strength is achieved from the claimed composition, specifically shown in tables 5 and 6.
The examiner disagrees. Looking at tables 5 and 6, table 6 shows 3 examples, all of which are of the present invention. So basically, no comparisons were made with something outside of the scope of the claims or the closest prior art. So this argument is without merit.
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 RANDY P GULAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1302. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4pm.
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, Randy P Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights