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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 12, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed August 12, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-9remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (WO 2018/079611 A1, using US 2020/0048553 A1 as the English equivalent) in view of Nakamichi et al (JP 2019/027000 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claim 1: Hu discloses a pellet (para. 0189) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (para. 0068) and pitch-based carbon fiber (para. 0164).
Not disclosed is the interfacial shear strength of the liquid crystal polyester. However, Hu teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification identifies a high molecular weight as a factor in achieving the claimed interfacial shear strength (para. 0048). Hu discloses that the liquid crystal polyester has a high molecular weight (para. 0096). Therefore, the claimed physical property, i.e. an interfacial shear strength of equal to or greater than 30 Mpa, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Hu is silent to the length-weighted average fiber length of the pitch-based carbon fibers.
Nakamichi teaches carbon fibers for use in polymer composites, including liquid crystal polyester composites (para. 0061), wherein the fibers have a length-average fiber length of 30-200 µm, stating that this length improves the dispersibility of the fibers (para. 0056). Nakamichi and Hu are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely polymer composites comprising carbon fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the carbon fibers taught by Hu within the range taught by Nakamichi in order to ensure fiber dispersibility.
Regarding Claim 2: Hu teaches that the pitch-based carbon fibers are present at 10 to 150 parts by mass, or preferable 60 to 70 parts by mass, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the liquid crystal polyester (para. 0174).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9: Hu discloses a repeat unit with a 2,6-naphthylene group (para. 0080).
Regarding Claims 4-5: Hu discloses a repeat unit that reads on Formula (1) (para. 0071-0072, formula 1) and is present in an amount of 30 to 80 mol% (para. 0086), a repeat unit that reads on Formulas (2) and (3) (para. 0071-0072, formula 2) and is present in an amount of less than or equal to 35 mol% (para. 0089), and a repeat unit that reads on Formula (4) (para. 0071-0072, formula 3) and is present in an amount of less than or equal to 35 mol% (para. 0090).
Regarding Claim 6: Hu does not explicitly disclose that the weight-average molecular weight of the liquid crystal polyester is equal to or greater than 150,000. However, Hu teaches that the liquid crystal polyester has a high molecular weight (para. 0096) and that the flow starting temperature, which is an indicator of molecular weight, is from 280 to 380°C (para. 0097-0099). The instant specification cites a flow starting temperature of from 280 to 400°C (para. 0046). Given the similarity in the flow starting temperature values, it would be reasonable to infer that the molecular weight of the liquid crystal polyester disclosed by Hu would fall within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 7: Hu discloses a melt-kneading step (para. 0184).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (WO 2018/079611 A1, using US 2020/0048553 A1 as the English equivalent) in view of Nakamichi et al (JP 2019/027000 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Hu discloses a molded article (para. 0202) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (para. 0068) and pitch-based carbon fiber (para. 0164).
Not disclosed is the interfacial shear strength of the liquid crystal polyester. However, Hu teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification identifies a high molecular weight as a factor in achieving the claimed interfacial shear strength (para. 0048). Hu discloses that the liquid crystal polyester has a high molecular weight (para. 0096). Therefore, the claimed physical property, i.e. an interfacial shear strength of equal to or greater than 30 Mpa, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Hu is silent to the length-weighted average fiber length of the pitch-based carbon fibers.
Nakamichi teaches carbon fibers for use in polymer composites, including liquid crystal polyester composites (para. 0061), wherein the fibers have a length-average fiber length of 30-200 µm, stating that this length improves the dispersibility of the fibers (para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the carbon fibers taught by Hu within the range taught by Nakamichi in order to ensure fiber dispersibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are directed toward the amendments to independent claims 1 and 8, which have been overcome by the new grounds of rejection.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767