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 .
This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed February 15/2023. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
This Office Action replaces the Office action mailed on 12/22/2025 .
Priority
This application is the national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/057568, filed August 17, 2021, which claims priority to EP20191311.8, filed August 17, 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The drawings are objected to because Table 1.1., FIG.1 is missing the second component (see under VALOX 195).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, it is suggested the phrase “polyethylene terephthalate glycol PCTG” be replaced with “polyethylene terephthalate glycol PETG”.
In claim 5, line 2, it is suggested the phrase “amorphous resin” be replaced with “amorphous polymer resin” as recited in the instant claim 1 to ensure consistency.
In claim 7, line 4, it is suggested the phrase “styrene-ethylene/1 butene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS)” be replaced with “styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "composite" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 5 and 7 contain Markush groups which are open ended, i.e. “comprising”. For a Markush group to be proper under 112b it must be a closed group, and the language must therefore be “selected from the group consisting of......” with “and’ between the last two species. See MPEP 803.02
Claims 3-4, 6 and 8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (WO 2019/130269 and/or US 2020/0140679 as listed on the IDS dated 02/15/2023) as evidenced by Hirai et al. (p.2, Composites, Part B 225 (2021)109258).
Regarding claim 1, Peng et al. teach a thermoplastic composition comprising from about 15 wt.% to about 80 wt.% of a polymer resin and from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% of a low dielectric constant glass fiber component (claim 1), wherein the polymer resin comprises polyalkylene terephthalate (polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), which correspond to the semi-crystalline polymer) [0016]), polyarylene ether (claim 2), polyester-polycarbonates copolymers [0017], polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (which correspond to the amorphous polymer resin)(claim 16) or a combination thereof. Peng et al. further teach the composition comprises 23 wt.% of PBT 195, 22.4 wt.% of PBT 315, 15 wt.% of POLY3 (polycarbonate polysiloxane copolymer) and 15 wt.% of glass fibers (example 21) and the example 22 comprises 19.4 wt.% of PBT 195, 19 wt.% of PBT 315, 12 wt.% of POLY4 (resorcinol based polyester polycarbonate polymer) and 20 wt.% of glass fibers (Table 1, Table 2B), as required by the instant claim.
Additionally, Peng et al. teach the refractive index of the resorcinol based polyester polycarbonate polymer (which correspond to the amorphous polymer) has a refractive index around 1.59-1.603 [0023]. Peng et al. teach VALOX 195 and VALOX 315 ([0016], Table 1) as examples of the PBT, which are the same semicrystalline polyesters used in the instant specification, wherein the refractive index (RI) is disclosed as 1.52-1.54 (Table 2-1,Fig.5). Peng et al. further teach the glass fiber ECS (HL)3033 by CPIC (Table 1, and 2B), is used in the examples, wherein the ECS(HL)033 is an E glass fibers (See Technical datasheet). It is noted that E-glass fibers possess a refractive index of about 1.547-1.558, as evidenced by Hirai et al. (p.2, Composites, Part B 225(2021)109258). Therefore the RI of the VALOX 195 and VALOX 315 (semicrystalline polyester) is lower than the RI of the glass fibers and the RI of the amorphous resorcinol based polyester polycarbonate polymer is greater than the RI of the glass fibers, as required by the instant claim.
Peng et al. are silent on the dissipation factor Df to be lower than the dissipation factor observed for a reference composition in the absence of the amorphous resin.
However, in view of the substantially identical composition of Peng et al. , the composition of Peng et al. will possess the claimed dissipation factor Df because the dissipation factor is considered an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claims 2-3, Peng et al. teach the composition comprises polyesters such as polyalkylene terephthalate including polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and provide as commercial examples of PBT, VALOX 315, VALOX 195, manufactured by SABIC, which are also disclosed in the instant specification as the semicrystalline polyester) [0011], [0016]. Peng et al. further teach poly(cyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate) (PCT) [0014], poly( cyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate)-co-poly(ethylene terephthalate), PETG; PCTG [0015], as required by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 4, Peng et al. teach the composition comprises a recycled polybutylene terephthalate (POLY2)(Table 1 and Example 24, Table 2B), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Peng et al. teach the composition comprises polyester-polycarbonate copolymer [0017], a resorcinol based polyester carbonate polymer, a copolymer of BPA polycarbonate and resorcinol phthalate (ITR) [0022], polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer [0053](examples 21 and 22, Table 2B), thereby reading on the amorphous polymer resin.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Peng et al. teach a thermoplastic composition further comprising 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.% of an impact modifier (claim 1), wherein the impact modifier is selected from the group consisting of styrene butylene styrene copolymer (SEBS), styrene butadiene styrene (SBS), styrene ethylene propylene styrene (SEPS) and combinations thereof (claim 12), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Peng et al. teach glass fiber as the reinforcing filler (abstract, claim 1, [0055]-[0059]), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Peng et al. teach low dielectric constant (Dk) glass fiber having a circular cross section, round, flat, or irregular cross-section ([0061]-0062], claim 19), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 11-14, Peng et al. are silent on the warpage, light transmission value and dissipation factor Df as recited in the instant claims
However, in view of the substantially identical composition of Peng et al., the composition of Peng et al. will possess the claimed properties because the warpage, light transmission value and dissipation factor are considered inherent properties. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 15, Peng et al. teach the thermoplastic composition comprise one or more additives such as antioxidants, ultraviolet stabilizer and agents, heat stabilizers, flame retardants and combinations thereof [0075], as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Peng et al. teach the thermoplastic composition is used in radio frequency (RF) technology in automotive applications [0094]-[0095], wherein the article is a component of an antenna, an antenna component or a radio frequency component (claims 18 and 20). It is noted that a radar sensor are radio frequency components, thereby reading on the component of an automotive radar sensor as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Peng et al. teach an article comprising the thermoplastic composition (claim 17 and claim 18), as required by the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763