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.
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 1-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0256703).
Regarding claims 1-4, Kim teaches a polymer composition comprising a polymer matrix in an amount of about 10-50 wt% (Kim abs, para 14) that includes an aromatic polyester, such as PET or PBT (Kim para 15, 16) and an inorganic filler, which may be flakes or whiskers, and inorganic particles (Kim para 8) in an amount of about 60-350 parts for the mineral whiskers, and about 1-60 parts for particle fillers (Kim para 11). This overlaps with the claimed ranges of 60-200 parts for the inorganic filler of flakes and whiskers, and 40-200 parts for the inorganic particles, all parts relative to 100 parts by weight the polymer matrix.
It is noted that as each range of the particles and the whiskers have an endpoint of “about 60” there would exist embodiments wherein the particles would have a greater concentration than that of the whiskers/fibers.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the inorganic filler proportions and the polymer matrix proportions taught by Kim overlaps with the instantly claimed inorganic filler proportions and the polymer matrix proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Kim further teaches that the composition exhibits an in-plane thermal conductivity of about 0.7-2 W/m-K per ASTM E 1461-13 (Kim para 8). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the in plane thermal conductivity taught by Kim overlaps with the instantly claimed in plane thermal conductivity and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Kim is silent with respect to the melt flow rate (MFR).
However, as Kim teaches the same polymer matrix (PET or PBT) with the claimed inorganic fillers with the claimed compositions and proportions, along with overlapping in-plane thermal conductivity, Kim would be expected to possess the same MFR as claimed of about 0.1-50 g/10 min according to ISO 1133:2022 at a temperature of 250 °C and a load of 2.16 kg.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches the inclusion of glass fibers in the composition (Kim para 36).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches inorganic particles may be from 1-20 wt% (Kim para 11). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount of inorganic particles taught by Kim overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of inorganic particles and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches the inorganic particles may be metal silicates, such as calcium and aluminum silicate (Kim para 31).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches the inorganic particles may be metal oxide particles (Kim para 9).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches that the average particle diameter of 5-200 µm (Kim para 31). This would be expected to substantially overlap with the claimed range of a median diameter of 1-25 µm. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the particle size taught by Kim overlaps with the instantly claimed particle size and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches that the inorganic particles have a specific surface area of from about 50-600 m2/g (Kim para 47). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the particle specific area taught by Kim overlaps with the instantly claimed particle specific area and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches that the polymer matrix is free from fillers having an intrinsic thermal conductivity of 100 W/m-K or more (Kim para 9). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1. Kim further teaches an electronic module comprising a housing that receives at least on electronic component where the housing contains the polymer according to claim 1 (Kim para 51).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McWilliams et al. (US 4,518,653).
Regarding claims 6, and 7, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1.
Kim is silent with respect to the glass fibers being coated with a sizing composition.
Kim and McWilliams are related in the field of glass fibers in a polymer matrix. McWilliams teaches coating the glass fibers with a sizing composition (McWilliams col 9, ln 21-25) to provide lubricity to the glass fibers in an amount of 0.05-0.5 wt% (McWilliams col 8, ln 4-37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the glass fibers of Kim to have a lubricating sizing agent in an amount of 0.05-0.5 wt% as taught by McWilliams to help the glass move smoothly. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount of sizing agent taught by McWilliams overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of sizing agent and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kotian et al. (US 2010/0190896).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 9.
Kim is silent with respect to the metal silicate particles including talc.
Kim and Kotian are related in the filed of PET/PBT with inorganic fillers. Kotian teaches that talk is a metal silicate that has use as a flame retardant (Kotian para 33). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal silicate of Kim to be talc as taught by Kotian because this would provide the polymer composition of Kim with improve flame retardance.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1.
Kim is silent with respect to the inorganic particles including metal hydroxides. Kotian teaches metal hydroxides such as tin and zirconium hydroxide as a synergistic agent to improve the behavior of the flame retardant (Kotian para 34). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a metal hydroxide such as tin or zirconium hydroxide as taught by Kotian because this would improve the flame retardance of the composition.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2020/0301255, hereafter Kim ‘255).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 1.
Kim is silent with respect to the polymer composition comprising an impact modifier.
Kim and Kim ‘255 are related in the field of polymer matrix compositions. Kim ‘255 teaches the presence of an impact modifier to improve the strength and flexibility of the polymer composition (Kim ‘255 para 41). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polymer composition of Kim to include an impact modifier as taught by Kim ‘255 because this would provide the composition of Kim with increased strength and flexibility.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 17.
Kim is silent with respect to the electronic component being a camera.
Kim and Kim ‘255 are related in the field of polymer matrix compositions. Kim ‘255 teaches the polymer composition of a PET/PBT that has inorganic fillers may be used in a camera (Kim ‘255 para 12, 28). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the electronic of Kim could be used in a camera as taught by Kim ‘255.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 17 above, and further in view of Grinsteinner (US 2019/0153179).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches a polymer composition as above for claim 17.
Kim is silent with respect to the electronic module being used for lidar or radar.
Kim and Grinsteinner are related in the field of PET/PBT (Grinsteinner para 20) fiber reinforced (Grinsteinner para 36) plastics. Grinsteinner teaches that the filled plastic may be used in a radar module (Grinsteinner para 54-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the electronic of Kim could be used in a radar module as taught by Grinsteinner.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Grinsteinner as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0243062).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Grinsteinner teaches a PET/PBT with fiber filler that may be used as a radar module as above for claim 18.
Kim in view of Grinsteinner is silent with respect to that module being connected to an electric propulsion source and transmission, where the propulsion source and transmission are connected via a power electronics module.
Kim in view of Grinsteinner are related in the field of motor vehicles. Yu teaches using an electric propulsion source and transmission connected via a power module as well as sensors assembly (Yu para 2, 64). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the radar module of Kim in view of Grinsteinner in an electric propulsion source and transmission connected via a power module as well as sensors assembly as taught by Yu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5 and 6 that the prior art of record does not teach the newly amended feature requiring that the amount of inorganic particles is greater than that of the inorganic fibers.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that as each range of the particles and the whiskers have an endpoint of “about 60” there would exist embodiments wherein the particles would have a greater concentration than that of the whiskers/fibers.
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 LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/L.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 1/10/26
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781