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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 12, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claim 1. Claims 7 – 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1 – 6 & 9 – 15 are examined herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9 – 12, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al. (US 2009/0242248 A1), in view of Tsuchigane (US 2020/0079919 A1), Nassif (J. Am. Sci 2012; 8(8)), and *Yoji et al. (JP 2000-239925 A).
*Submitted by Applicant with IDS filed 1/29/2025
**Avient.com: Vectran® Liquid Crystal Polymer by Kuraray™
With regard to claims 1, 10, & 12, Sohn et al. teach an electronic device comprising a reinforcing element (10) composed of a woven fabric of organic fibers, such as liquid crystal polyester fibers (paragraph [0060] & [0062]). The reinforcement material (10) is stacked (coated) on both sides with a thermoplastic resin layer (20) (paragraph [0019] & Fig. 3). The composite sheet is adhered to a core substrate (30) (i.e., “another member” or “a member”) in the electronic device (Figs. 4 – 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
112
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A woven fabric inherently contains a plurality of openings. However, Sohn et al. do not teach a ratio of the area occupied by the plurality of openings of the woven fabric to the total area of the composite sheet. In other words, the ratio of the occupied by the plurality of openings is the portion where the coating material is present and the fiber of the woven fabric is not present (see paragraph [0048] of the specification). Sohn et al. also fail to teach the flexural rigidity B value of the composite sheet formed by fabric (10) and the thermoplastic layer(s) (20).
Nassif teaches the effect of weave structure and weft density on physical and mechanical properties of micropolyester woven fabrics. As weft density increases the fabric stiffness also increases (Fig. 9). Higher density of fibers refers to less open area between fibers. Furthermore, a high fabric stiffness refers to low fabric flexibility. Therefore, as the open area of the woven fabric increases, the flexibility of the woven fabric also increases.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Nassif, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the area occupied by the plurality of openings of the woven fabric through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired flexibility properties of the fabric, and thus the flexibility properties of the composite. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Sohn et al. do not teach the tensile strength of the composite sheet material in the warp direction per unit thickness (N-cm2/cm).
However, as evidenced by **Avient.com, Vectran® LCP (liquid crystal polyester) fibers have a high tensile modulus (i.e. tensile strength) of 600 – 830 g/d (grams/denier).
Tsuchigane et al. teach a glass fiber-reinforced resin article of high tensile strength. Glass fibers impart extremely high strength to resin compositions (paragraph [0006]). Furthermore, a high tensile strength fibrous composite can be achieved by optimizing the ratio of a major axis (fiber length) and a minor axis (fiber diameter) of the fibers (paragraphs [0039] – [0040]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Tsuchigane et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the ratio of the major axis and the minor axis of high strength fibers, such as the high strength LCP fibers taught by Sohn et al., through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired tensile strength of the composite. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Yoji et al. teach a reinforcement material comprising a fabric composed of liquid crystal polyester (LCP) fibers and a thermoplastic resin impregnated therein for use as a printed-circuit board base material (paragraph [0003]). The content of the impregnating thermoplastic resin (i.e., “ratio of a mass of the thermoplastic resin and woven fabric”) is not limiting. The resin content may be adjusted to achieve the desired mechanical performance, dimensional stability, high adhesiveness, and no defects (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoji et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the resin content (i.e., ratio of the mass of the thermoplastic resin to the mass of the woven fabric) taught by Sohn et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve desired properties, such as mechanical performance, dimensional stability, adhesiveness, and minimizing defects. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, Sohn et al. teach liquid crystal polyester resin, or other thermoplastic, such as polyurethane resin, may be the thermoplastic layer stacked and pressed (pre-preg) into the fabric (paragraphs [0095] – [0096]).
With regard to claim 3, Sohn et al. do not teach the tensile strength of the composite sheet in a direction of 45° with respect to warp direction of woven fabric.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the ratio of the major axis and the minor axis of high strength fibers, such as the high strength LCP fibers taught by Sohn et al., through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired tensile strength of the composite. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 4, Sohn et al. teach the reinforcement material is not limited thickness, but between 4 and 200 µm (paragraph [0067]). The thickness of the thermoplastic layer when composed of liquid crystal resin is preferably in the range of 5 – 100 µm (paragraph [0075]). Therefore, the total thickness is 14 – 300 µm, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 10 to 400 µm.
With regard to claim 5, Sohn et al. do not teach the tensile strength of the resin-reinforcing material in the warp direction per unit thickness (N-cm2/cm).
However, as discussed above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the ratio of the major axis and the minor axis of high strength fibers, such as the high strength LCP fibers taught by Sohn et al., through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired tensile strength of the composite. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 6, Sohn et al. do not teach the LCP fiber of the reinforcement material is monofilament or multifilament.
Yoji et al. teach a resin-reinforcing material for a printed circuit board, wherein the resin-reinforcing material is a woven fabric composed of LCP fibers. The fibers may be in the form of mono-filaments or multi-filaments based on the desired performance (paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoji et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use monofilament or multifilament liquid crystal polyester fibers in the fabric of the electronic device taught by Sohn et al. based on the desired performance of the device.
With regard to claim 9, Sohn et al. do not teach the basis weight of the woven fabric.
Yoji et al. teach a basis weight of the woven fabric 10 – 100 g/m2 for achieving a composite with good mechanical performance, handleability, flexibility, and without defects (paragraph [0037]). This basis weight range is within Applicant’s claimed range of 10 – 500 g/m2.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yoji et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a woven fabric composed of liquid crystal polyester fibers with a basis weight of 10 – 100 g/m2 for achieving a reinforcing member with good mechanical performance, handleability, flexibility, and without defects.
With regard to claims 11 & 15, another member is a core substrate (30) (i.e., “an internal member”) (Figs. 4 – 5).
Claim(s) 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al., Tsuchigane, Nassif, & *Yoji et al., as applied to claims 1 & 12 above, and further in view of Funatsu et al. (US 2010/0104870 A1).
With regard to claims 13 – 14, as discussed above for claim 6, Yoji et al. teach the liquid crystal polyester (LCP) fiber may be a multifilament, but fail to teach the multifilament LCP fiber has a total fineness of 56 to 220 dtex.
Funatsu et al. teach liquid crystalline polyester (LCP) fiber production, wherein the total fineness of the fibers used is 1 dtex or more and 500 dtex or less. A total fineness in this range makes it possible to reduce the thickness of the fabric and a high mesh high-speed opening area (paragraph [0165]). The fibers may include a plurality of filaments (i.e., “multifilament”), such as 100 filaments or less (paragraph [0166]). The LCP fiber can be suitable for reinforcing members because of the high strength, elastic modulus, and high tenacity even by a small fiber fineness (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Funatsu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a multifilament liquid crystalline polyester fiber that has a total fineness of 1 dtex or more and 500 dtex or less in order the fabric formed from said fiber to simultaneously have reduced thickness, high strength, and high tenacity. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Claims 1, 10 and 12 recite: a ratio of the area occupied by the plurality of openings of the woven fabric to the total area of the composite sheet is 20Z% or less…Yoji cannot make all the of the elements of Claims 1, 10 and 12 known. Moreover, none of Tsuchigane, Sohn and Funatsu can cure these deficiencies” (Remarks, Pgs. 8 – 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Nassif (J. Am. Sci 2012; 8(8)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights