DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The data is still not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The Ryton 2AQ200N PPS is a specific polyarylene sulfide polymer, with a specific number of repeating units, polydispersity, and molecular weight, among other properties that is not encompassed by claim 1. Additionally the polyorganosiloxane referenced by claim 1 is similarly broad but the KF105 is a specific polyorganosiloxane comprising epoxy groups only. The Antioxidant compound taught by the examples is also a specific compound and is not commensurate with the scope of the broadly claimed “antioxidant compound” which can comprise a multitude of different structures.
The amended claim is still not specific enough to make the data commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Examiner highly recommends further analysis on why the specific polyarylene sulfide polymer, the polyorganosiloxane and antioxidant used in the example is commensurate with the scope of the claims. For Example, the Examiner recommends an analysis explaining why Ryton 2AQ200N PPS is representative of all claimed polyarylene sulfide polymers and why the properties of this specific polymer would be expected to occur across all polymers encompassed by the limitations on the polyarylene sulfide of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamao US 5604287 in view of Moad US 20100069557A1 and Sakamoto JP2003082122A as evidenced by DMS-E12 Data Sheet (retrieved from: <https://www.gelest.com/product/DMS-E12/> on 5/21/2025)
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 11, Yamao teaches a resin composition comprising a polyarylene sulfide, silicone oil, and antioxidants (Abstract, Col. 5 Line 64-65, Col. 6 Lines 1-5). This reads on the claimed PAS. Yamao teaches the polymer composition can be melt molded (Col. 6 Lines 45-50). Yamao teaches the composition can be used as a sealant in electronic applications (Abstract). Yamao teaches that the silicone oil can be modified with various functional groups but is silent on the functional groups.
Moad teaches a polymer composition that can produce melt mold products (Abstract, Paragraph [0229] and [0231]). Moad also teaches this composition can be used for sealing and for electronic components (Paragraph [0192]). Moad teaches siloxanes can be used as dispersing agents (Paragraph [0094]). Moad teaches that one of these siloxanes is DMS-E12 or EPCH2O(CH2)3-PDMS-(CH2)3OCH2EP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the silicone oil of Moad as the silicone oil of Yamao because the silicone oil of Moad is shown to be suitable for similar compositions in similar applications and the silicone oil of Moad is shown to have the advantage of acting as a dispersing agent. The silicone oil of Moad is epoxy terminated. This reads on the claimed (POS).
Yamao teaches that the composition can comprise an antioxidant but is silent on the amount of antioxidant present in the composition (Col. 5 Line 64-65).
Sakamoto teaches a teaches a PPS film with good electrical characteristics (Abstract). Sakamoto teaches the addition of an antioxidant to suppress gas generation between atmospheric oxygen and PPS resin (p. 2, [0015]). Sakamoto teaches that including the antioxidant in the PPS resin in amounts of 0.1-1.5 wt% leads to a good balance between self-healing and quality (Paragraph [0016]). The amount of antioxidant taught in Sakamoto overlaps with the claimed amount of antioxidant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use 0.1-1.5 wt% of antioxidant taught in Sakamoto as the amount of antioxidant used in Yamao because Sakamoto teaches a suitable range for a similar composition and a similar application.
Yamao teaches the PAS can be comprised of a divalent aromatic ring (Col. 2 Lines 52-65). Yamao teaches the polyarylene sulfide composition has the formula of (Ar-S)n where Ar can be
PNG
media_image1.png
77
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Col. 2 Lines 50-65).
This reads on the structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
207
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where i is zero. This also reads on the structure of (a-1) and the limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Sakamoto teaches the antioxidant can be bisphenol based oxidation inhibitor like 2,2 ʹ- methylenebis (4-methyl-6-t-butylphenol. This reads on the claimed “hindered phenol compound.”
Yamao in view of Moad teaches that the silicone oil can be DMS-E12 (Paragraph [0095]). The DMS-E12 datasheet teaches that DMS-E12 can have a molecular weight between 1,000-1,400 this overlaps with the claimed range of n being from 2-70 (Page 1). DMS-E12 teaches that Q is an epoxy group.
Regarding claim 6, Yamao does not expressly disclose the melt flow rate of the PAS polymer Nevertheless, products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Yamao’s PAS necessarily has the same melt flow rate as the claimed PAS.
Regarding claim 21, Yamao is silent on the PAS comprising a molecular weight from 40,000 to 120,000. Sakamoto teaches the polyphenylene sulfide resin that is used has a molecular weight of 50,000 or more (Paragraph [0021]). Sakamato teaches a similar composition used in a similar application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the molecular weight range of Sakamoto’s PPS as the amount of molecular weight range used in Yamao because Sakamoto teaches a suitable range for a similar composition and a similar application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamao US005604287 in view of Moad US 20100069557A1 and Sakamoto JP2003082122A in further view of Jeol US 20190390015A1.
Regarding claims 8, Yamao in view of Moad and Sakamoto is silent on the specific antioxidant in the composition being one of the listed antioxidants of claim 8. Jeol teaches a polymer composition that comprises a polyphenylene sulfide polymer (Abstract). Jeol also teaches that the composition can be used to in electronic applications (Paragraph [0090]). Jeol also teaches the composition comprises an antioxidant (Paragraph [0083]). Jeol teaches that this antioxidant can be Irganox 1010 (Paragraph [0140]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the antioxidant of Jeol in the composition of Yamao in view of Moad and Sakamoto because Jeol teaches that this antioxidant is suitable in a similar composition in a similar application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762