DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2024 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 1 recites “bifunctional polymers are”, which should be “the bifunctional polymer is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 3 recites “polyarylene sulfides”, which should be “the polyarylene sulfide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 1 recites “the copolymer”, which should be “the bifunctional polymer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 1 recites “polyarylene sulfides”, which should be “the polyarylene sulfide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 1 recites “the capacitor”, which should be “the film capacitor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 6 and line 8 recite “the composite”, which should be “the composite structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22, lines 2-3 recites “the propulsion source”, which should be “the at least one electric propulsion source”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23, line 1 recites “the power electronics module”, which should be “the at least one power electronics module”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24, line 1 recites “the power electronics module”, which should be “the at least one power electronics module”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (US 2021/0238371 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9 and 13-17, Deguchi discloses a composite molded article (composite structure) comprising a molded article bonded (adjacent) to a cured product, wherein the molded article comprises polyarylene sulfide resin composition (polymer composition) and the cured product comprises a curable resin composition (resinous material) comprising an epoxy resin (thermoset resin) (see paragraphs 0013, 0098, 0101, 0102, 0103).
The polyarylene sulfide resin composition comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (bifunctional polymer) obtained by copolymerization of a-olefin such as ethylene, (meth)acrylic acid ester (not epoxy functional (meth)acrylate), and glycidyl (meth)acrylate (epoxy functional (meth)acrylate) (see paragraphs 0074, 0075). The thermoplastic elastomer reads on a bifunctional polymer as presently claimed. The amount of thermoplastic elastomer is 0.01 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts of the polyarylene sulfide resin (see paragraph 0073). The polyarylene sulfide resin composition can comprise fillers such as glass fibers (reinforcing fibers) and inorganic particulate fillers (see paragraph 0070). The amount of fillers is 1 to 600 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of polyarylene sulfide resin (see paragraph 0071). The polyarylene sulfide resin composition also comprises 1 to 250 parts by mass of epoxy resin and 0.01 to 5 parts by mass of an olefin wax (see paragraph 0020). Based on amounts of polyarylene sulfide resin, thermoplastic elastomer, fillers, epoxy resin and olefin wax in the polyarylene sulfide composition, the amount of polyarylene sulfide in the polyarylene sulfide composition is 10 to 98 wt% (10 = 100/965 x 100 and 98 = 100/102.02 x 100, 965 = 100 + 10 + 600 + 250 + 5 and 102.02 = 100 + 0.01 + 1 + 1 + 0.01).
The molded article comprising polyarylene sulfide resin composition can be a sheet (first layer) (see paragraph 0084). Further, the entire surface of the molded product is bonded to the curable resin composition (see paragraph 0103). The cured product obtained from the curable resin composition in the entire surface of the molded product reads on a second layer.
In light of the overlap between the claimed composite structure and that disclosed by Deguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composite structure that is both disclosed by Deguchi and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Deguchi discloses the polyarylene sulfide resin composition comprising an olefin wax (see paragraph 0020). Given that olefin wax provides mold releasing property, olefin wax is release additive (see paragraph 0044). The dropping point (melting point) of olefin wax is preferably 70 °C or more and 100 °C or less (see paragraph 0043). Therefore, the polyarylene sulfide resin composition includes olefin wax with dropping point of 100 °C, i.e. free of olefin wax (release additives) having a melting temperature below about 70 °C. It is also noted that the specific examples of olefin wax used by Deguchi include olefin waxes having melting point 73 °C and 74 °C (see paragraphs 0118-0121). Further, there is no disclosure of release additives such as pentaerythrityl-tetrastearate (free of pentaerythrityl-tetrastearate) (see paragraphs 0042, 0078).
Claims 2, 7, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (US 2021/0238371 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Arkema (Lotader® AX8900, 2014).
Regarding claims 2, 7, 10 and 19, Deguchi discloses the composite structure as set forth above. While Deguchi discloses the polyarylene sulfide resin composition (polymer composition) comprising the thermoplastic elastomer (bifunctional polymer) obtained by copolymerization of a-olefin, (meth)acrylic acid ester and glycidyl (meth)acrylate, Deguchi does not disclose content of glycidyl (meth)acrylate. Deguchi does not disclose melt flow index of the thermoplastic elastomer. Deguchi does not disclose a melt viscosity and an adhesion strength of the polyarylene sulfide resin composition (polymer composition) as presently claimed.
Arkema discloses Lotader® AX8900 which is an ethylene-methyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate terpolymer (bifunctional polymer) having methyl acrylate content of 24 wt%, glycidyl methacrylate (epoxy functional methacrylate) content of 8 wt% and therefore 68 wt% of ethylene (68 = 100-24-8) (see Typical properties). Lotader® AX8900 has a melt flow rate of 6 g/10 min determined in accordance with ASTM D1238 (see Typical properties). Given that same standard, i.e. ASTM D1238 is used for measuring melt flow in the present claim, the melt flow rate of 6 g/10 min of Lotader® AX8900 is in accordance with ASTM D1238 at a load of 2.16 kg and temperature of 190 °C as presently claimed. Lotader® AX8900 is identical to the bifunctional polymer utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0035 of present specification). Lotader® AX8900 provides high thermal stability during processing, high flexibility, optimal dispersion during melt mixing with engineering thermoplastics, good adhesion on PPS and improves impact strength (see Description and Applications).
In light of motivation for using Lotader® AX8900 disclosed by Arkema as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use Lotader® AX8900 of Arkema as thermoplastic elastomer (bifunctional polymer) in Deguchi in order to provide high thermal stability during processing, high flexibility, optimal dispersion during melt mixing with engineering thermoplastics, good adhesion on PPS and improve impact strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Deguchi in view of Arkema disclose the polyarylene sulfide resin composition (polymer composition) comprising the polyarylene sulfide resin and the thermoplastic elastomer (bifunctional polymer). The polyarylene sulfide can be polyphenylene sulfide (see paragraph 0021 of Deguchi), which is substantially similar to polyphenylene sulfide utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0025 of present specification). The thermoplastic elastomer (bifunctional polymer) is Lotader® AX8900, which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0035 of present speciation). Further, amounts of polyarylene sulfide resin and thermoplastic elastomer disclosed by Deguchi in view of Arkema overlap with that presently claimed. Therefore, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that the polyarylene sulfide composition (polymer composition) of Deguchi et al. in view of Arkema would necessarily inherently have the same melt viscosity and adhesion strength as presently claimed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (US 2021/0238371 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kyouda et al. (US 2010/0202095 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Deguchi discloses the composite structure as set forth above. The composite structure comprises a cured product (second layer) comprising an epoxy resin. The composite structure can be used for capacitor cases (see paragraph 0104).
Deguchi does not disclose the epoxy resin combined with an inorganic oxide filler.
Kyouda et al. disclose a case mold capacitor comprising a case made of polyphenylene sulfide resin filled with a molding resin made of an epoxy resin (see paragraphs 0032, 0033). Further, a metal-oxide having silica-based compound (inorganic oxide filler) is added to epoxy resin in order to provide crack resistance and optimum viscosity (see paragraphs 0036).
In light of motivation for using a metal-oxide having silica-based compound (inorganic oxide filler) added to epoxy resin disclosed by Kyouda et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a metal-oxide having silica-based compound (inorganic oxide filler) added to epoxy resin in Deguchi in order to provide crack resistance and optimum viscosity, and thereby arrive the claimed invention.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyouda et al. (US 2010/0202095 A1) in view of Deguchi (US 2021/0238371 A1).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Kyouda et al. disclose a case mold capacitor, i.e. film capacitor, comprising a plurality of metallized films capacitor elements 1 connected to a first terminal 3A and a second terminal 6A (see paragraphs 0028-0030). The capacitor is placed in a capacitor case 4 (Fig 1A) wherein the case is made of polyphenylene sulfide combined with elastomer, i.e. first layer of composite, and is filled with a molding resin 5 comprising the molding resin made of epoxy resin (thermoset resin), i.e. second layer of composite (see paragraphs 0032, 0033, 0065). That is, the molding resin fills the empty space between the inner surface of the case and the outer surface of the capacitor element such that the capacitor is embedded in the molding resin (see paragraph 0012). Note that this is identical to the film capacitor of the present invention (see paragraphs 0055 and 0061 of the present specification).
While Kyouda et al. disclose the case (first layer) comprises elastomer, Kyuoda et al. do not disclose the elastomer is a bifunctional polymer as claimed.
Deguchi discloses a polyarylene sulfide composition used for a capacitor case (see paragraphs 0001, 0104), where the polyarylene sulfide composition comprises a polyolefin-based elastomer made from a α-olefin and a vinyl polymerizable compound having a functional group such as glycidyl (meth)acrylate, i.e. bifunctional polymer that contains epoxide functional group and (meth)acrylate functional group (see paragraphs 0073-0075). The polyolefin-based elastomer improves the impact resistance of the polyarylene sulfide (see paragraph 0073).
In light of the motivation for using bifunctional polymer (polyolefin-based elastomer) with polyarylene sulfide in a capacitor case as disclosed by Deguchi as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bifunctional polymer (polyolefin-based elastomer) of Deguchi as the elastomer in the polyarylene sulfide capacitor case of Kyouda et al. in order to produce a capacitor case with improved strength., and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyouda et al. (US 2010/0202095 A1) in view of Deguchi (US 2021/0238371 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Ward et al. (US 2008/0180000 A1).
Regrading claims 22 and 23, Kyouda et al. in view of Deguchi disclose the film capacitor as set forth above. While Kyouda et al. in view of Deguchi discloses a hybrid vehicle comprising the capacitor (see paragraphs 0001, 0081), Kyouda et al. in view of Deguchi do not disclose the specific components of the vehicle.
Ward et al. disclose a hybrid vehicle (see paragraphs 0012, 0020) comprising an AC electric motor 16, i.e. electric propulsion source, coupled to a transmission 20 where the transmission has a power capacitor 32, i.e. power electronics module, diametrically mounted thereon and electrically connected to the motor, i.e. the capacitor connects the motor to the transmission (see paragraphs 0006, 0020, Fig 1). The motor and transmission would necessarily be considered part of a powertrain. Placing the capacitors on the surface of the transmission allows the capacitors to more easily reject heat and to operate in a lower temperature environment and improves EMI shielding (see paragraph 0026).
In light of the motivation for using specific components of a hybrid vehicle disclosed by Ward et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hybrid electric vehicle in of Kyouda et al. in view of Deguchi having an AC electric motor, i.e. electric propulsion source, coupled to a transmission where the transmission has the capacitor, i.e. power electronics module, diametrically mounted thereon and electrically connected to the motor, i.e. the capacitor connects the motor to the transmission (see paragraphs 0006, 0020, Fig 1) in order that the capacitor more easily rejects heat and operates in a lower temperature environment and to improve EMI shielding, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, Ward et al. also disclose an inverter 30 that converts direct current into alternating current (AC) (see paragraphs 0020-0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787