DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Prior Art Rejections
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claim 2-3 is/are rejected as being obvious over Liu (US 20230167274 A1) in view of Ramlow (US 6207344 B1).
In reference to claim 2, Liu discloses a molded article made from a thermoplastic resin composition (“polymer composition” [P0012]) and comprising a conductive portion formed on a surface thereof, (“the antenna module generally contains at least one component that includes a substrate on which is plated a metal coating” [P0054])
wherein the thermoplastic resin composition comprises a polyphenylene ether-based resin and a laser direct structuring additive (LDS additive), (“plating additive” [P0038])
…
the thermoplastic resin composition has a Vicat softening temperature of 90° C. or higher and a water absorption rate of 1.5% or less (Liu teaches the same composition as claimed and thus has the claimed properties).
Liu teaches the additive is provided (“0.1 wt. % to about 20 wt. %” [0038]), but does not indicate size of the additive and thus the interparticle spacing cannot be determined.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, thermoplastic resin composition, molded article, and component for telecommunication apparatus, Ramlow discloses a similar “resin composition having laser marking properties comprising a polycarbonate resin, an effective amount of a copper chromite …
copper chromite spinel has a particle size distribution of about 0.35 to about 5.5 .mu.m. Examples of copper chromites having a spinel structure are the PIGMENT BLACK CDT 1145…
the amount is between about 0.5% and about 5% by weight of the total composition”
Using the additive of Ramlow (0.5-5wt% of 0.35-5.5 micron copper chromite particles) would result in the claimed interparticle spacing. As concentration goes up spacing goes down. As particle size goes down, spacing goes down. Thus, there are many overlapping tuples of additive concentration and size that meet the claimed spacing limitation. At least 1 wt% copper chromite and 0.5 micron copper chromite results in the claimed spacing.
To calculate the interparticle spacing range, we first convert the 1 weight % of copper chromite to a volume fraction. Assuming a typical copper chromite density of 5.5 g/cm3 (varies by exact stoichiometry) and a polymer density ranging between 1.0 and 1.2 g/cm3, 1 gram of copper chromite in 99 grams of polymer results in a filler volume fraction between 0.0018 and 0.0022. Using the standard interparticle distance equation where the spacing equals the particle size multiplied by the cube root of the inverse volume fraction minus one, and using a particle size of 0.5 microns, the spacing evaluates to approximately 3.35 to 3.53 microns. Alternatively, if a cubic lattice dispersion model is utilized that accounts for the maximum packing geometry of spherical particles, the calculated spacing is more compact, resulting in a range of 2.6 to 2.8 microns. Therefore, the overall interparticle spacing range for 0.5-micron copper chromite particles at this loading concentration falls between 2.6 and 3.5 microns, depending on the spatial arrangement assumptions and the exact density of the polymer matrix.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to to use the Ramlow additive size because Liu is silent regarding the additive size and Ramlow provides this missing information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additive having a concentration and size recognized in the art for the same purpose and thereby arrive at the same invention wherein an inter-particle distance of the LDS additive in the thermoplastic resin composition is 2.2 to 3.2 μm.
In reference to claim 2, Liu discloses “laser direct structuring (“LDS”) process during which a computer-controlled laser beam travels over the plastic substrate to activate its surface at locations where the conductive path is to be situated” (P0002).
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights