DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/19/2026. Claims 5, 8 and 10-11 are pending in the application. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 12-17 are currently pending.
The objections and the previous 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1 - 8 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s responsive amendment.
The rejections of claims 1 -17 over Peng et al. as evidenced by Hirai are withdrawn. Because prior art rejections should ordinarily be confined strictly to the best available prior art (see MPEP 706.02), the Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejections (though still believed to be proper) in favor of rejections based on the newly-discovered best available prior art.
This action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al., hereinafter He (CN 106536625 A as listed on the IDS dated 4/29/2025, US PG Pub 2017/0029615 A1 is being used as English Translation herewith).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a thermoplastic composition comprising: from about 20 wt. % to about 90 wt. % of a polybutylene terephthalate component (PBT), (which correspond to the semicrystalline polymer); a second component comprising one or more of: from greater than about 0 wt. % to about 30 wt. or from about 10 wt.% to about 30 wt.% [0024] of a polyetherimide component, from greater than about 0 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of a polyester component, from greater than about 0 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of a resorcinol-based aryl polyester component and from greater than about 0 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of a polycarbonate component; and from about 10 wt. % to about 60 wt. % of a filler component; wherein the combined weight percent value of all components does not exceed about 100 wt. % and all weight percent values are based on the total weight of the composition (claim 1), wherein the filler component comprises glass fibers having circular, flat or irregular cross-section including ([0041], table 1, p.11), including Flat glass Nittobo CSG 3PA-830, which is the glass fiber used in the examples of the instant specification having a refractive index (RI) of 1.55-1.57 (Table 1-1, Fig.1, GF4 of the instant specification).
He further teaches the PBT component comprises PBT sold by SABIC as VALOX 315 and VALOX 195 [0013], which are the same semicrystalline polyesters used in the instant specification, wherein the refractive index (RI) of the polyesters is disclosed as 1.52-1.54 (Table 1-1, Fig.1 of the instant specification). Moreover, He teaches the polyetherimide (PEI) used is ULTEM 1010 ([0023], Table 1, p.11), which is the same PEI used in the instant specification, wherein the refractive index (RI) of the PEI is disclosed as 1.63-1.65 (Table 1-1, Fig.1 of the instant specification). Therefore the RI of the VALOX 195 and VALOX 315 (semicrystalline polyester) is lower than the RI of the glass fiber having a non-circular cross section and the RI of the PEI is greater than the RI of the glass fibers, as required by the instant claim.
He does not teach the claimed components together in one example.
However, He does teach the PBT, PEI and the glass fiber having a non-circular cross section can be used in the composition together. It would have been obvious to substitute PBT 10 µM E-GF for Flat glass Nittobo, CSG 3PA-830 (Table 1) in the example S3 (Table 4) because He specifically teaches that these glass fibers can be substituted given that He teaches them as potential glass fibers for use in the different embodiments.
He is silent on the warpage and dissipation factor Df to be lower than the warpage and dissipation factor observed for a reference composition in the absence of the amorphous resin.
However, in view of the substantially identical composition of He, the composition of He is expected to possess the claimed warpage and the claimed dissipation factor Df because they 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 claims 2-3, He teaches the composition comprises polyesters such as polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) ([0008]-[0010], Table 1), as required by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 6, He teaches the composition comprises from greater than 0 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of impact modifiers, which overlaps with the claimed range ([0048]-[0049], [0107], Table 1, claim 11). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by He.
Regarding claim 7, He teaches the composition comprises ethylene-ethylacrylate copolymer, ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate ([0049], Table 1:IM1-IM3), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, He teaches the composition comprises a glass fiber component selected from E-glass, S glass [0041] and low dk glass fiber ([0137], table 6), wherein the glass fiber has a flat cross-section ([0047], [0137]), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 12-14, He is silent on the light transmission value and dissipation factor Df as recited in the instant claims
However, in view of the substantially identical composition of He, the composition of He is expected to possess the claimed properties because 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, He teaches the composition comprises additives including antioxidant, antistatic agent, colorant, de-molding agent, dye, flow promoter, flow modifier, light stabilizer, lubricant, mold release agent, pigment, quenching agent, thermal stabilizer, UV absorbent substance, UV reflectant substance, and UV stabilizer, or combinations thereof [0048], as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 16-17, He teaches injection molded articles comprising the thermoplastic composition, wherein the article is suitable for RFID and automotive applications [0080]. Given that RFID applications involve electromagnetic signals and He recognizes the use of the composition in automotive applications . Therefore, it would have been reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to infer that the composition of He can be used as an automative radar sensor, thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 106536625 A, US PG Pub 2017/0029615 A1 is being used as English Translation herewith) in view of Peng et al. (WO 2019/130269 and/or US 2020/0140679 as listed on the IDS dated 02/15/2023).
Regarding claim 4, He teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above and it is incorporated herein by reference.
He is silent on the thermoplastic composition, wherein the polyester comprises a recycled PBT.
However, In the same field of endeavor, 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 polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) [0016], polyarylene ether (claim 2), polyester-polycarbonates copolymers [0017], polycarbonate-polysiloxane copolymer (claim 16) or combination thereof (Table 1, Table 2B). Peng et al. further teach the composition comprises a recycled polybutylene terephthalate (POLY2)(Table 1 and Example 24, Table 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recycled PBT as taught by Peng et al. to obtain economic and environmental benefits; as Peng et al. demonstrate the recycle PBT as being suitable in a similar thermoplastic composition application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights