DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP 2011-57903, of record).
Terada is directed to a resin composition designed for IC trays (molded body designed for integrated circuits or electronic products) and comprising, as the main components, 20-90 parts by mass of polyamide (claimed C resin) and 10-80 parts by mass of polyphenylene ether (claimed A resin). Terada further teaches (a) the inclusion of 10 to 70 parts by mass of a styrene-based impact modifier (claimed B resin) in relation to 100 parts by mass of polyphenylene ether and (b) the inclusion of antistatic agents at loadings less than 20 parts in relation to 100 parts by mass of polyamide and polyphenylene ether combined. These ranges substantially overlap with those of the claimed invention- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the aforementioned materials at loadings in accordance to the claimed invention given the general disclosure of Terada and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results (experimental data provided by Applicant is illegible).
With further respect to the resin composition, Terada states that a conductivity imparting material may be included and as such, Terada is directed to a resin composition that is devoid of a conductivity imparting material, (e.g. carbon black). Additionally, Terada states that the conductivity imparting agent can be graphite and in such an instance, the resin composition is “free from carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, metal powders, and metal fibers”.
Terada also states that the disclosed resin composition can be processed at preferred temperatures between 240°C and 360°C.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 13-16), given that the resin composition of Terada is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention (in terms of materials and loadings), it reasons that the resin composition of Terada would demonstrate an HDT (heat resistance property), a surface electrical resistance, a water absorption rate, and a specific gravity in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that as best can be determined by the examiner, the claimed parameters are a function of using resins A-C, an antistatic agent, and including carbon black at small loadings that define a composition that is “substantially” free of carbon black- this is substantially the same as the resin composition taught by Terada and thus, it is expected that said resin composition would demonstrate properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-4, the impact modifier(claimed B resin) is preferably a copolymer comprising styrene and butadiene and/or isoprene.
As to claims 10 and 11, the resin composition of Terada includes 0.01-8 parts by mass (in relation to the 100 parts of polyamide and polyphenylene ether combined) of a compatibilizing agent, such as maleic acid, maleic acid anhydride, fumaric acid, and citric acid (constitutes reactive compatibilizer).
Regarding claim 12, the resin composition of Terada can include a surface treatment agent (e.g. stearic acid) at loadings as small as 0.05 parts and such is seen to constitute a composition that is “substantially” free of a surface active agent.
3. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Mawatari (US 5,614,568, of record).
As detailed above, Terada is directed to a resin composition (and a molded article formed therefrom) comprising an antistatic agent. While Terada is silent with respect to a specific type of agent, the claimed agents and properties are consistent with those that are conventionally used in similar molded articles formed from resin compositions, as shown for example by Mawatari (Column 8, Lines 29+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of commonly used antistatic agents in the resin composition of Terada absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (reasonable expectation that the use of polyether, for example, would provide the desired antistatic properties).
4. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Lee (US 3,835,200, of record).
As detailed above, Terada is directed to a resin composition (and associated molded article) including polyphenylene ether. Terada provides the known structure of such an ether in Paragraph 83. However, Terada does not indicate the number of repeating units. In any event, the claimed number of repeating units are consistent with those that are commonly used in similar resin compositions including polyphenylene ether and designed to form molded articles, as shown for example by Lee (Column 1, Lines 1-25 and Column 5, Lines 3-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional polyphenylene ethers in the resin composition of Terada absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Terada neither discloses a polymeric antistatic agent nor recognizes any reason to avoid conductive fillers. As detailed above, Terada is specifically directed to resin compositions that are “free from carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, metal powders, and metal fibers”. It is emphasized that the language “may be included” is seen to encompass resin compositions in accordance to the claimed invention. Additionally, Terada specifically teaches the inclusion of antistatic agents at loadings less than 20 parts by mass in relation to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of polyamide and polyphenylene ether.
Applicant further states that achieving HDT > 135°C while simultaneously achieving surface electrical resistance < 1.0x1012 Ω requires the specific three-component resin system of the claimed invention. Given that Terada specifically teaches the specific three-component resin system of the claimed invention, it does in fact reason that the claimed HDT and surface electrical resistance would be present in Terada. It is emphasized that the resin composition of Terada includes 20-90 parts by mass of polyamide (claimed C resin), 10-80 parts by mass of polyphenylene ether (claimed A resin), and 10 to 70 parts by mass of a styrene-based impact modifier (claimed B resin) in relation to 100 parts by mass of polyphenylene ether and such substantially overlaps the claimed invention. For example, the claims require the B resin be present in a range of from 5 to 40 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the A resin and Terada requires the B resin to be present in a range of from 10 to 70 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the A resin. Thus, Terada discloses a range that substantially encompasses the claimed range. Similarly, the claims require the C resin to be present in a range from 30 to 240 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the B resin, while Terada is directed to compositions in which the C resin is present in a range from 35 to 9,000 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the B resin. Thus, Terada essentially fully encompasses the claimed resin composition.
Applicant further argues that Terada is dominated by polyamide as its principal polymer. This statement is not entirely understood since Terada is specifically directed to resin compositions in which polyphenylene ether is the principal polymer with loadings as large as 80 parts in relation to a total amount of polyphenylene ether and polyamide.
Applicant also points to the data in Tables 1-3 and contends that a conclusive showing of unexpected results has in fact been demonstrated. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above, the resin composition of Terada specifically includes resin A (polyphenylene ether-based resin), resin B (styrene based resin), and resin C (amide-based resin). More particularly, none of Comparative Examples 22-66 constitute the closest prior art of record since they are devoid of a three component composition as expressly taught by Terada. It is noted that while some of the comparative examples include a three component combination (e.g. PPE, SAN, PC), such a comparison does not provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results since the claims are not limited to such a three component combination (claims encompass the presence of PPE, a styrene-based resin, and PA and Tables 1-3 fail to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for such a three component combination at the claimed loadings).
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights