DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of polyphenylene sulfide in the reply filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16 and 19-26 read on the elected species. Claims 17-18 are non-elected and are withdrawn at this time.
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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, please amend to claim “ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate (EGMA), ethylene-alkyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate, and ethylene-vinyl acetate-glycidyl methacrylate (E-VA-GMA)”, in order to clearly clarify the claimed copolymers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 22, applicants claim a group of possible impact modifiers.
In claim 24, applicants claim a group of possible fillers.
These groups are listed as an open ended list due to the word “comprising”.
A list of specified alternatives is defined as a Markush group. A Markush group is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising” or “including”) the alternative members. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group comprising” or the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as “at least one member” selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as “or mixtures thereof”). See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondoh (US 7,705,079), as evidenced by Walpita (US 5,739,193) and Special Chem (Heat Deflection Temperature of Plastics, Special Chem, 2025, p. 10).
Kondoh exemplifies a composition comprising the following (Table 1, Example 6):
100 parts PPS (polyphenylene sulfide);
300 parts B-4, particulate calcium titanate, average particle diameter of 0.5 micron; and
0.5 parts calcium hydroxide.
This suggests a composition comprising about 25 wt% PPS, 75 wt% calcium titanate, and a filler.
The composition has a dielectric constant of 16 and a dielectric dissipation factor of 0.002 measured at a frequency of 1 MHz.
The composition of Kondoh inherently possesses the claimed dielectric constant and loss tangent at 1.9 GHz as the composition of Kondoh uses the claimed ceramic filler in the claimed amount and particle size in combination with the claimed resin in the claimed amount.
Alternatively, Walpita shows a polyphenylene sulfide composite comprising strontium titanate with an average particle size of about 1-2 micron, where the dielectric constant and loss tangent are measured at 1 MHz, 1 GHz, and 2 GHz, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
208
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, it can be seen that the dielectric constant and loss tangent vary hardly at all between 1 MHz and 2 GHz. Walpita teaches calcium titanate as a functionally equivalent high dielectric ceramic filler to strontium titanate; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of Kondoh to possess a dielectric constant of at least 4 and a loss tangent of less than 0.005 at 1.9 GHz, as claimed.
Kondoh anticipates or is prima facie obvious over instant claims 16, 23 and 26.
As to claim 25, PPS is known as possessing an HDT of about 140-160°C when measured at 0.46 MPa, as evidenced by Special Chem, and the incorporation of calcium titanate inherently increases this property.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 19 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/027074, as evidenced by Walpita (US 5,739,193) and Special Chem (Heat Deflection Temperature of Plastics, Special Chem, 2025, p. 10). For convenience, the machine translation of JP ‘015 will be cited below.
WO ‘074 teaches a composite material for preparing an antenna comprising a synthetic resin, preferably a polyphenylene sulfide, and a ceramic powder, preferably a calcium titanate, with a particle size of preferably 1-15 micron, where the composite exhibits dielectric characteristics composed of a combination of a high relative dielectric constant that exceeds 17, and a low dielectric loss tangent that is less than 0.0025 measured at a frequency of 2.5 GHz.
WO ‘074 teaches the ceramic powder in an amount of preferably 42-75 vol%, where at 42 vol%, the ceramic is present in an amount of about 75 wt%, suggesting the resin in an amount of 25 wt%.
Therefore, the amounts of ceramic and resin overlap with the claimed amounts of 15-80 wt% resin and 10-80 wt% ceramic, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
While the dielectric characteristics are not measured at the same frequency, Walpita shows a polyphenylene sulfide composite comprising strontium titanate with an average particle size of about 1-2 micron, where the dielectric constant and loss tangent are measured at 1 MHz, 1 GHz, and 2 GHz, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
208
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, it can be seen that the dielectric constant and loss tangent vary hardly at all between 1 GHz and 2 GHz. Walpita teaches calcium titanate as a functionally equivalent high dielectric ceramic filler to strontium titanate; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions of WO ‘074 to possess the claimed dielectric constant and loss tangent at 1.9 GHz.
WO ‘074 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 19 and 26-27.
As to claim 25, WO ‘074 teaches the claimed components in overlapping amounts and sizes; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition to possess the claimed HDT.
Alternatively, PPS is known as possessing an HDT of about 140-160°C when measured at 0.46 MPa, as evidenced by Special Chem, and the incorporation of calcium titanate would be expected to increase this property.
Claims 16 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-177015 in view of WO 2010/027074, as evidenced by Sumitomo Chemical Co. (Technical Data Sheet of IGETABOND, Sumitomo Chemical Co., 2016, 1 page), Walpita (US 5,739,193) and Special Chem (Heat Deflection Temperature of Plastics, Special Chem, 2025, p. 10). For convenience, the machine translation of JP ‘015 will be cited below.
JP ‘015 teaches a composition having a high permittivity and a low dielectric loss tangent comprising the following:
100 parts (A) polyarylene sulfide;
1-400 parts (B) alkaline earth metal salt of titanic acid, specifically listed to include calcium titanate; and
0.5-20 parts (C) an olefin copolymer essentially comprising α-olefin and glycidyl ester of α,β-unsaturated acid, exemplified as Bond First 2C and E, which are both E-GMA (ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate) copolymers and Bond First 7L, which is a E-GMA-MA (ethylene-glycidyl methacrylate-methyl acrylate) terpolymer, as evidenced by Sumitomo Chemical Co. (1 page).
JP ‘015 exemplifies the composition as comprising about 45 wt% PPS, 52 wt% calcium titanate and 3 wt% epoxy containing copolymer, with a dielectric constant as greater than 10 and the dielectric loss tangent, also known as the dissipation factor, as 0.003, measured at a frequency of 1 GHz (Examples A-1 and A-2).
While the dielectric characteristics are not measured at the same frequency, Walpita shows a polyphenylene sulfide composite comprising strontium titanate with an average particle size of about 1-2 micron, where the dielectric constant and loss tangent are measured at 1 MHz, 1 GHz, and 2 GHz, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
208
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, it can be seen that the dielectric constant and loss tangent vary hardly at all between 1 GHz and 2 GHz. Walpita teaches calcium titanate as a functionally equivalent high dielectric ceramic filler to strontium titanate; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions of JP ‘015 to possess the claimed dielectric constant and loss tangent at 1.9 GHz.
JP ‘015 does not teach or suggest the particle size of the alkaline earth metal salt of titanic acid, as claimed.
WO ‘074 teaches a composite material comprising a synthetic resin, preferably a polyphenylene sulfide, and a ceramic powder, preferably a calcium titanate, exhibiting dielectric characteristics composed of a combination of a high relative dielectric constant that exceeds 17, and a low dielectric loss tangent that is less than 0.0025.
WO ‘074 teaches the average particle size of the ceramic powder as preferably 1-15 micron, teaching that if the particle size is too small, handling becomes difficult and it becomes difficult to sufficiently reduce the BET specific surface area, where a small BET specific surface area is desirable to provide the calcium titanate powder with a low dielectric loss tangent. WO ‘074 teaches that if the average particle size is too large, the dielectric characteristics are likely to vary, and the surface properties are likely to be impaired, further teaching that problems such as wear of the injection molding machine are likely to occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the calcium titanate of WO ‘074 with an average particle size of 1-15 micron in JP ‘015, as both composites are desired to possess a high dielectric constant and a low dielectric loss tangent, and WO ‘074 teaches that if the particle size is too small or too large, the dielectric characteristics are likely to vary or cannot be met.
JP ‘015 in view of WO ‘074 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 16, 19-22 and 26.
As to claims 23-24, JP ‘015 teaches that the composition can contain inorganic fillers, such as glass fiber, talc, clay, mica, wollastonite, etc.
As to claim 25, JP ‘015 teaches the claimed components in the claimed amounts and overlapping sizes; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition to possess the claimed HDT. Alternatively, PPS is known as possessing an HDT of about 140-160°C when measured at 0.46 MPa, as evidenced by Special Chem, and the incorporation of calcium titanate would be expected to increase this property.
As to claim 27, WO ‘074 teaches a similar composition as being suitable for use in preparing a dielectric antenna.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
