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 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 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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2019/0092924 A1, and for dependent claim 5 only, further in view of either: JP 2014133842 (see applicant supplied English language translation) or CN 1085700223 A (see Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of PCT/EP2021/085224 for English Language translation).
Choi et al.’s independent claim 1 reads as followed: “A thermoplastic composite resin composition for shielding electromagnetic waves comprising: (A) a thermoplastic resin; (B) a carbon fiber; (C) carbon nanotube; and (D) carbon black, wherein the carbon fiber is a chopped carbon fiber surface-coated with an epoxy resin or a polyamide resin, and the carbon fiber comprises (B-1) a carbon fiber having a mean diameter of about 5 to 30 μm and a length of about 10 to 12 mm and (B-2) a carbon fiber having a mean diameter of about 5 to 30 μm and a length of about 6 to 8 mm.”. [Emphasis added]. Note: Said epoxy resin or polyamide resin, use to coat the carbon fibers, are sizing agents.
Choi et al.’s claim 4 reads as followed: “The thermoplastic composite resin composition of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic resin comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyamide, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, polyphenylene oxide and polyphenylene sulfide.” [Emphasis added].
Choi et al.’s dependent claim 7 reads as followed: “The thermoplastic composite resin composition of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic composite resin composition comprises: 100 parts by weight of the thermoplastic resin; about 15 to 20 parts by weight of the carbon fiber having a length of about 10 to 12 mm and about 10 to 20 parts by weight of the carbon fiber having a length of about 6 to 8 mm, as the carbon fiber; about 1 to 5 parts by weight of the carbon nanotube; and about 1 to 10 parts by weight of the carbon black, all the parts by weights are relative to the 100 parts by weight of the thermoplastic resin.”. [Emphasis added].
Attention is drawn to Choi et al.’s Examples 1-6 (see TABLE 1) which disclose molded articles made compositions comprising 100 parts by weight of a polyamide resin (A) PA6; between 25 and 30 parts by weight of a combination of B-1 and B-2 carbon fibers coated with an epoxy resin, (C) 5 parts by weight carbon nanotubes, (D) 10 parts by weight carbon black and (E) 0.5 parts by weight antioxidant and 0.3 parts by weight lubricant. Said molded articles are taught to have an electromagnetic wave shielding efficiency (dB) ranging from 60 to 71 which reads directly on applicant’s dependent claim 17.
Choi et al. “differ” from Applicant’s invention in the following ways: 1) there is not a direct teaching (i.e. by way of an example) to where the thermoplastic polymer used is selected to be polybutylene terephthalate instead of the polyamide resin used in the examples, 2) Choi et al. is silent on the “carbon content” of the carbon fibers and the carbon fibers used in Example 1-6 were coated with an epoxy sizing agent, and 3) in regards to applicant’s dependent claim 5, there is no direct disclosure to where the sizing agent, used to coat the carbon fibers, can also be selected from polyurethane resins and polyester resins.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Choi et al.’s disclosure of dependent claim 4, wherein it is taught that polybutylene terephthalate is a functional equivalent to a polyamide resin, as strong motivation to actually substitute polybutylene terephthalate for the polyamide PA6 resin actually used in Example 1-6. It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Although Choi et al. is silent on the “carbon content” of the carbon fibers used in their invention, Choi et al. does disclose in paragraph [0058], that the carbon fibers used in Examples 1-6 are TRO6Q produced by Mitsubishi Rayon. The Examiner performed an internet search of TRO6Q to find out the carbon content of said carbon fibers and the following was stated: “The carbon fiber component Pyrofil TRO6Q by Mitsubishi typically consists of approximately 93-95% carbon. The material is chopped, PAN-based carbon fiber with a sizing (coating) applied for compatibility with specific matrix resins.”. [Emphasis added]. The internet search further stated the following: “Higher heat treatments can increase this to over 99% for high-modulus fibers, but the standard TRO6Q is a general-purpose fiber.”. As such, Choi et al.’s carbon fibers used in their Example 1-6, have a carbon content that fully meets Applicant’s claimed carbon content of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4. Furthermore, applicant’s dependent claim 3 is fully met since applicant’s claimed carbonization temperature range produces carbon fibers having a carbon content that falls within TRO6Q. Please note that PAN-based carbon fiber stands for polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fiber, thus reading directly on Applicant’s dependent claim 2.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Choi et al.’s disclosure of their independent claim 1 that a polyamide resin, can be used to coat the carbon fibers instead of an epoxy sizing agent, as strong motivation to actually used a polyamide resins as the sizing agent instead of an epoxy resin sizing agent. It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
It would also have been obvious to use the disclosure of either JP 2014133842 (see applicant supplied English language translation) or CN 1085700223 A (see Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of PCT/EP2021/085224 for English Language translation) as strong motivation to actually use a polyurethane resin or a polyester resin, in lieu of an epoxy resin, as the sizing coating agent for the carbon fibers. Please note that JP 2014133842 (see page 3, lines 23 of applicant supplied English language translation) and CN 1085700223 A (see Example 3 and Example 9), individually disclose that it is very well known in the art to use polyurethane resin, a polyester resin or an epoxy resin as the sizing coating agent for the carbon fibers. JP 2014133842 and CN 1085700223 A individually further disclose that said coated carbon fibers are subsequently incorporated into a base thermoplastic resin which they disclose can be a polybutylene terephthalate resin.
Finally it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Choi et al.’s disclosed electromagnetic wave shielding thermoplastic composite resin compositions to make various electromagnetic wave shielding articles, such as a radome, IC chip housing and/or camera sensor housing, as set forth in applicant’s claims 14-16, since said articles are so common in the art needing electromagnetic wave shielding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764