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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 14-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3699234 A1 (Aug. 26, 2020) in view of EP 3,543,291 A1 (Sep. 25, 2019) and Machine translated JP 2017171731 A (Sep. 28, 2017).
EP 3699234 A1 (Aug. 26, 2020) teaches a composition comprising 25-75 wt.% of a base resin comprising 95 wt.% or more of a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), 0.1-10 wt.% of and LDS additive, 01-5 wt.% of a plating seed generation promoter, 10-60 wt.% of a glass fiber and 0-40 wt.% of a mineral filler in abstract.
EP 3699234 A1 teaches that the PPS has a melt index of 100 to 2,000 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 315oC/5 kg according to ASTM D1238 in [0024].
The instant invention further recites that the PPS has a melt volume (i.e., index) of less than 50 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 300oC/2.16 kg according to ISO-1133 over EP 3699234 A1.
The instant invention and EP 3699234 A1 use different methods of measuring the melt volume (i.e., index) and thus a direct comparison would not be feasible. A common physic is that a value of the melt volume (i.e., index) would be higher when a higher temperature and a heavier loading are applied. Thus, for example, a melt index of 100 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 315oC/5 kg according to ASTM D1238 would be expected to be lower when the instant condition of 300oC/2.16 kg according to ISO-1133 is applied yielding the recited melt volume (i.e., index) of less than 50 g/10 min. Further, there deemed to be a different condition for the ISO-1133 as taught by a sixth full paragraph at page 3 of JP in which utilization of 190oC and 5 kg loading for the PPS is taught.
Since PTO does not have equipment to conduct the test, it is fair to require applicant to shoulder the burden of proving that his material differs from those of EP 3699234 A1. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Charles Pfizer & Co. v. FTC, 401 F.2d 574, 579 (6th Cir. 1968). Inherent anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure, Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See MPEP 2112.01. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 U.S.C. 102, or “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70 (CCPA 1980) (quoting) In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2183
Although examples of EP 3699234 A1 teach utilization of the PPS having a melt volume (i.e., index) of 450 g/10 min. in [0071], choosing the PPS having a melt volume (i.e., index) of 100 g/10 min. which would be expected to have a melt volume (i.e., index) of less than 50 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 300oC/2.16 kg according to ISO-1133 would have been obvious. In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123. 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, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
EP 3699234 A1 teaches that the base resin further may comprise polyphenylene oxide (PPO) in [0025] and thus further utilization of the instantly recited small amount of the PPO in the examples of EP 3699234 A1 would have been obvious since it is taught as an optional resin.
The instant invention further recites the LDS additive consisting of antimony-doped tin oxide over LDS additives taught in [0027-0031] of EP 3699234 A1.
The instant examples use Tradename S-5000 from Ferro as the antimony-doped tin oxide and EP 3,543,291 A1 teaches S-5000 from Ferro as the LDS in [0035]. Thus, further utilization of the art well known commercial S-5000 from Ferro taught by EP 3,543,291 A1 in EP 3699234 A1 as the LDS additive would have been obvious.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize a PPS having a low melt volume (i.e., index) such as a melt index of 100 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 315oC/5 kg according to ASTM D1238 which would be expected to meet the recited of less than 50 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 300oC/2.16 kg according to ISO-1133 in EP 3699234 A1 in view of the fact that JP teaches utilization of the ISO-1133 with different conditions (190oC and 5 kg loading for the PPS) and further utilize the instantly recited small amount of the PPO in the examples of EP 3699234 A1 since the PPO is taught as an optional resin, and further to utilize the art well known commercial S-5000 from Ferro taught by EP 3,543,291 A1 in EP 3699234 A1 as the LDS since EP 3699234 A1 teaches utilization of the LDS absent showing otherwise.
Regarding the recited plating index of at least 0.7 of claim 41, the instant specification teaches the instant composition comprising the LDS additive has an improved plating index as compared to a composition without the LDS additive in para. [0039]. EP 3699234 A1 teaches employing the LDS additive and good plating properties in table 1 and thus the above discussed modified composition of the EP 3699234 A1 would be expect to have the recited plating index of at least 0.7.
Further regarding PPO in an amount of greater than 0 wt.% to 10 wt.% of claim 1, the recited “greater than 0 wt.%” would encompass a few ppm for example, the examiner does not expect any change to properties of the composition taught by EP 3699234 A1 (Aug. 26, 2020) by further utilizing a few ppm of the PPO.
Regarding the recited Mn of claim 15, the PPS of the EP 3699234 A1 having a melt index of 100 g/10 min. measured under a condition of 315oC/5 kg according to ASTM D1238 would be expected have the recited Mn.
Regarding the recited linear PPS of claim 16, EP 3699234 A1 teaches the linear PPS in [0022] and [0071].
Regarding the recited PPO of claims 17 and 18, EP 3699234 A1 teaches that the base resin further may comprise polyphenylene oxide (PPO) in [0025].
Regarding the recited ratio of claim 20, EP 3699234 A1 teaches 53.6 wt.% of the PPS (examples 5-8) and 5 wt.% of the LDS additive (D) in the Table 1 wielding about 8.53 wt.% of the LDS.
Regarding the recited ratio of claim 21, EP 3699234 A1 teaches employing the LDS additive in an amount of 1-10 wt.% in [0031] and thus utilization of a higher amount (i.e., up to 10 wt.%) of the LDS additive in the above discussed modified composition of the EP 3699234 A1 would have been obvious.
Regarding the recited additives of claim 22, the examples in the Table 1 of EP 3699234 A1 teach employing at least a mineral filler (G). Further, EP 3699234 A1 teaches employing various additives such as flame retardants and antioxidants in [0053].
Regarding the article of claims 23 and 24, EP 3699234 A1 teaches various articles such as a built-in antenna of mobile phones and tablet PCs in [0069] which would encompass the recited component of an electronic device.
Regarding claim 25, EP 3699234 A1 teaches 53.6 wt.% of the PPS (examples 5-8) and 5 wt.% of the LDS additive (D) in the Table 1 wielding about 8.53 wt.% of the LDS.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since EP 3699234 A1 teaches Cu(Cr, Mn)2O4 and fails to teach the instant copper chromite oxide or copper hydroxide phosphate in combination with antimony-doped tin oxide. Although WO 2015/094805 teaches the copper chromite oxide as a LDS additive in [0030], none of the prior art of record fairly teaches or suggests the instant mixture of copper chromite oxide and antimony-doped tin oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762