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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 now includes “wherein wherein” spanning lines 5-7; including this word twice is redundant, and therefore one instance of this term should be deleted.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "iron alloy" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (WO 2018199008 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2021/0108047 A1 as the English language equivalent) in view of Arai (US 2018/0347073 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches a resin molded body having excellent electromagnetic wave shielding properties (Abstract), comprising a thermoplastic resin, a plate-like graphite, and at least one of carbon black and metal fibers (Abstract). The specification that the composition includes at least one of carbon black and metal fibers implies that both materials may be present, and thus Matsumura teaches a composition containing a thermoplastic resin, carbon black, and metal fibers.
The metal fibers are indicated as having diameters ranging from 5 to 20 microns ([0074]) and lengths ranging from 2 to 10 mm (2,000 to 10,000 microns) ([0075]). The aspect ratios of these fibers may therefore range from about 100 to about 2,000, which overlaps the claimed range of “at least 5,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The metal fibers of Matsumura read on the claimed “solid particles having an aspect ratio (length:diameter) of at least 5 of a first electrically conductive material” because the instant Application contemplates metal fibers as suitable examples of this class of material (c.f. claim 2 which indicates that said material may be a fiber, and claim 9 which indicates that said material may be a metal).
Matsumura teaches that the thermoplastic resin within the inventive composition may include polyesters ([0062]), and specifically exemplifies the usage of polybutylene terephthalate ([0116]), which reads on the claimed “non-conductive polymer “ because the instant Application contemplates polyesters/polybutylene terephthalate as non-conductive polymers (c.f. claims 20 and 21).
Regarding the claimed compositional limitations, the composition of Matsumura requires only the thermoplastic resin, the plate-like graphite, and at least one of the metal fibers and carbon black. Matsumura teaches that the composition contains, per 100 parts of thermoplastic resin, 50-200 phr of the plate-like graphite ([0012]), and 1-50 phr of at least one of the metal fibers and the carbon black ([0012]). Therefore, both of the carbon black and metal fibers may be included in amounts ranging from 1 to 50 phr. In compositions containing both metal fibers and carbon black, the composition of Matsumura comprises between 33 and about 65.8 wt% of the thermoplastic resin, and between about 0.28 and about 24.9 wt% each of the metal fibers and carbon black. Matusmura further teaches the incorporation of other additives (including non-conductive fibrous fillers, antioxidants, UV absorbers, etc., [0078] and [0081]), but specifies that these materials are optional ([0078] and [0081]), and thus may comprise 0 wt% of the formulation. Therefore, In each case, these compositional amounts overlap/encompass/fall within their respectively claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness. In this case, the plate-like graphite material does not fall within any of the claimed categories of materials (i.e., it is different than the thermoplastic resin, metal fiber, carbon black, and additives described above), but is interpreted as being permissible in the claimed composition because the claimed composition is an open composition (c.f. the term “comprises” in line 8, alongside no indication that the claimed compositional amounts are required to add up to 100%). Therefore, the thermoplastic resin, metal wire, carbon black, and optional additives alone meet the claimed compositional limitations, and the incorporation of the plate-like graphite does not disqualify the teachings of Matsumura from reading on the claimed compositional amounts.
Matsumura differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the aspect ratio of the carbon black material.
In the same field of endeavor, Arai teaches a conductive carbon fiber composite (Abstract), which also contains a particular carbon material (Abstract). The resin may be polybutylene terephthalate ([0093]), and the particulate carbon material may be carbon black ([0038]), and may have an aspect ratio ranging from 1 to less than 10 ([0039]), which overlaps the claimed range of “less than 5,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthermore, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing substitute the carbon black aspect ratio range of 1 to less than 10 into the formulation of Matsumura, as taught by Arai, as Arai recognizes these carbon black aspect ratios as suitable for conductive resin compositions including polybutylene terephthalate. The carbon black of Matsumura reads on the claimed “second electrically conductive material” because the instant Application contemplates carbon black as a suitable example of this material (c.f. claim 9, which states that these materials may be carbon materials).
Regarding claim 2, as described above, Matsumura teaches the incorporation of metal fiber, which reads on the claimed “solid fibre particles.”
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura teaches the incorporation of a thermoplastic resin (Abstract), which reads on the claimed “thermoplast.”
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura teaches the production of the composition via a kneading process that produces a uniform dispersion of at least the plate-like graphene material ([0085]). It is reasoned that the graphite material and metal fibers are also uniformly dispersed in the inventive composition (Matsumura makes no indication that any of the inventive components would be held separately to prevent uniform dispersion thereof). The composition of Matsumura therefore meets the claimed limitation requiring that the electrically conductive materials are homogeneously distributed in the product.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura teaches the injection molding of the inventive composition ([0087]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as described above, the composition of Matsumura contains between 33 and about 65.8 wt% of the thermoplastic resin, and between about 0.28 and about 24.9 wt% each of the metal fibers and carbon black, and the additional additives are indicated as optional (i.e., optionally 0 wt%). In each case, these compositional amounts overlap/encompass/fall within their respectively claimed ranges (which the plate-like graphite falling within the purview of the claimed “one or more additives,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, as described above, the conductive materials of Matsumura include carbon and metal-based materials.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura teaches that the metal fibers are formed from stainless steel ([0076]), which reads on the claimed metal of “iron…or an alloy thereof.”
Regarding claim 11, as described above, Matsumura teaches that the metal fibers may be stainless steel ([0076]), and teaches the use of carbon black, which is carbon. Furthermore, as described above, Matsumura teaches that the metal fibers have fiber lengths ranging from 2-10 mm ([0075]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.01 to 100 mm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Matsumura teaches that the metal fibers have diameters ranging from 5 to 20 microns ([0074]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 µm to 100 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura teaches that the additional additives may include inter alia non-conductive fillers ([0078]) and antioxidants and stabilizers ([0081]), which read on the claimed list.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Matsumura demonstrates that the inventive composition provides shielding at 75 GHz (c.f. p. 11, Table 3), and teaches the testing thereof by emitting a prescribed frequency and measuring the intensity of the signal when a wave-absorber sample is inserted between the transmission and receiving antennae ([0129] and [0132]-[0133]). This process reads on the claimed method of absorbing electromagnetic millimeter waves, and the frequency of 75 GHz falls within the claimed range of “60 GHz to 200 GHz,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The testing equipment, when containing a sample of the inventive composition, comprises the claimed composition in addition to a transmitter and sensor, which together read on the claimed “electronic device.”
Regarding claims 16, Matsumura is silent with regard to the volume resistivity of the inventive composition; nevertheless, as described above, Matsumura teaches a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed composition, which contains all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed volume resistivity characteristic will therefore necessarily be present in Matsumura, as applied above.
Regarding claim 17, as described above, Matsumura teaches that the inventive composition absorbs frequencies at 75 GHz (p. 11, Table 3), which falls within the claimed range of “60 GHz to 200 GHz,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthermore, while Matsumura does not indicate absorptivity in the entirety of the claimed range, Matsumura teaches a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed composition, which contains all of the same components, and which shares at least one physical characteristic of the claimed composition (i.e., absorptivity at 75 GHz). Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed absorption characteristics will therefore necessarily be present in Matsumura as applied above.
Regarding claim 18, as described above, Matsumura teaches the incorporation of metal fibers and carbon black which read on the claimed first and second electrically conductive materials.
Regarding claims 19-21, as described above, Matsumura teaches the use of a thermoplastic resin (Abstract), which may be a polyester ([0062]), and which is exemplified as poly(butylene terephthalate) ([0116]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (WO 2018199008 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2021/0108047 A1 as the English language equivalent) in view of Choe (KR 20190037491 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Matsumura differs from claim 3 because it is silent with regard to the carbon black being spherical or lamellar in shape.
In the same field of endeavor, Choe teaches a molded polybutylene terephthalate composition for EMI shielding ([0001]) which contains conductive carbon materials ([0012]) which may be carbon black ([0037]), and which may be spherical ([0017]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize spherical carbon black as the carbon black within Matsumura, as taught by Choe, as Choe teaches spherical carbon blacks as suitable for incorporation within EMI-Shielding poly(butylene terephthalate) -based molding compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762