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 .
This communication responds to the amended claims filed 03/18/2026. Claims 1-50 are current
pending. Elected Claims 1-16 are under examination.
3. Non-elected claims 17 - 50 are withdrawn.
5. Claims 1-16 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a
previous Office Action.
Continued Examination
7. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 4-hydroxybenzoic acid of Claim 6 is one of hydroxycarboxylic acids. Claim 1 claims hydroxycarboxylic acid repeating units constitute about 70 mol% or more of the polymer while claim 6 claims 4-hydroxybenzoic acid being 60 mol. % to 90 mol.% of the polymer. The lower limit claimed in Claim 6 is lower than the range claimed in Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
7. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
(US2019/0169427 Al).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a polymer composition comprising aromatic polymers from
about 20 wt.% to about 70 wt.% ([0015]), inorganic filler from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% ([0044]),
and impact modifier from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% ([0048]). The wt.% ranges of polymers, inorganic filler and impact modifier encompass or the same as ranges of the claimed components, respectively. Kim further teaches the aromatic polymers include liquid crystalline polymers ([0021]) wherein a liquid crystalline polymer typically contains about 10 mol. % to about 85 mol. % repeating units derived from hydroxycarboxylic acid ([0026]), particularly suitable aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acids are 4-hydroxybenzoic acid ("HBA'') and 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid ("HNA") (Id.) and about 5 mol.% to 60 mol. % repeating units derived aromatic dicarboxylic acid, such as 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid (NDA) ([0025]). The disclosed mol. % of hydroxycarboxylic acid and naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic overlap or encompass the claimed ranges, respectively. Kim furthermore teaches that the composition exhibits a tensile elongation from about 3% to about 10% and a Charpy notched impact strength of greater than about 0.5 kJ/m2 to 20 kJ/m2 ([0011]), overlapping the claimed ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Kim, as such one ordinary skilled artisan would have envisaged a polymer composition comprising:
from about 50 wt.% to about 70 wt.% of aromatic polymers that includes a liquid crystalline
polymer containing one or more repeating units derived from a hydroxycarboxylic acid, wherein the
hydroxycarboxylic acid repeating units constitute about 70 mol.% or more to 85 mol.% of the polymer, and further wherein the liquid crystalline polymer containing repeating units derived from
naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic and/or naphthenic dicarboxylic acids in an amount from about
10 mol.% or more to about 30 mol.% of the polymer;
from about 10 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of inorganic filler particles; and
from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of an impact modifier.
Thus, Kim teaches a polymer composition which is substantially identical to that of instant Claim 1. Consequently, the claimed tensile elongation and Charpy notched impact strength are expected. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. In this case, Kim discloses that ranges of tensile elongation and Charpy notched impact strength overlap the claimed respective ranges. In addition, sample 6 composition contains 52.9 wt. % polymer, 40 wt.% inorganic filler and 1 wt.% impact factor. The respective wt.% of the components falls within the instant claimed wt.% ranges. And the LCP consists of HBA, HNA and TA, the same as the instant LCP5. The tensile elongation of Sample 6 is 5.03%, falling within the instant claimed 4.5% or more. The Charpy notched impact strength is 9.3 kJ/m2which is less than 10% of the claimed 10 kJ/m2. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to expect that a polymer composition containing the overlapping portion amount of the components would result tensile elongation and Charpy notched impact strength the same of or falling within the claimed ranges. 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses that the composition may have a melt viscosity of from about
1 to about 200 Pa-s at a shear rate of 1000 seconds-1([0066]), therefore, the melt viscosity is less than 200
Pa-s s at a shear rate of 4000 seconds-1.
. Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses that the composition may exhibit a tensile strength of from
about 20 to about 500 MPa ([0011]). Although Kim measured with ISO Test No. 527:2012. One ordinary
skilled artisan would reasonably infer the tensile strength encompasses the claimed 100 MPa or more
when determined by ISO Test No. 527:2019.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses that the composition may have a melting temperature of 350°C
([0066]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim exemplifies that the LCP-1 and LCP-2 contain HBA and HNA ([0084]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches HBA and/or HNA typically constitute from about 10 mol. % to
about 85 mol.% of the polymer ([0026]), it implies that each of HBA and HNA can be 10 mol. % to about
85 mol. % of the polymer, overlapping the claimed more than 70 mol.% and about 10 mol. % to about 30 mol. %, respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the polymer may contain terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, 2,6-
naphthalenedicarboxylic acid, hydroquinone, etc., or a combination thereof ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches suitable inorganic filler particles having a hardness value of
about 2.0 or more based on the Mohs hardness scale ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches suitable inorganic filler particles having a median diameter of
from about 0.1 to about 30 micrometers ([0045]), overlapping with the claimed about 0.1 to about 20
micrometers.
Regarding Claim 11, barium sulfate is the preferred inorganic filler of Kim.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches the polymer composition remains substantially free of glass
fiber ([0064]).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Kim teaches the impact modifier may be an olefin copolymer that
contains a (meth)acrylic monomeric unit ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches the composition may contain an antistatic filler ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses that a molded part of the composition exhibits a deflection
temperature under load of from about 180°C to about 280°C at a specified load of 1.8 MPa. Although Kim measured the deflection temperature according to ASTM D648-07, one ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that that the deflection temperature is 160°C or more if measuring with ASTM D648-18.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US2019/0169427 Al),
as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Yosuke et al. (JP2018168207 A).
The disclosure of Kim has been discussed above. Kim teaches that the polymer composition
comprising inorganic filler particles but is silent on that the particles are spherical.
However, Yosuke teaches a liquid crystalline polymer composition for a camera module ( claim 7) comprising 50 to 80 wt.% liquid crystalline polymer and 20 to 50 wt.% inorganic fillers (claim 1),
wherein the liquid crystalline polymer contains repeating units derived from hydroxycarboxylic acid
repeating units, such as 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid and dicarboxylic acids, such
as terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid (p3:90 - p4: 127). Thus, Yosuke is an analogous art of Kim.
Yosuke further teaches spherical inorganic fillers are preferred because spherical inorganic fillers have
surface smoothness and compatible with each other (p7:226-229), in view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to use
spherical inorganic filler particles for the composition of Kim.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-5, 10, 13-14 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 3 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,163 ('163) in view of Kim
(US2019/0169427 Al).
Regarding Claim 1, claim 12 of' 163 claims a polymer composition comprising:
from about 50 wt. % to about 90 wt. % of a polymer matrix that includes a liquid crystalline polymer
containing one or more repeating units derived from a hydroxycarboxylic acid, wherein the
hydroxycarboxylic acid repeating units constitute from about 50 mol% to about 70 mol% of the polymer,
further containing repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic and/or dicarboxylic acids
in an amount of about 15 mol % or less of the polymer (citing claim 3); and from about 10 wt.% to about
50 wt.% of silica particles (claim 3). Thus, claim 12 of' 163 discloses a polymer composition comprising
a polymer matrix and inorganic filler in the amounts overlapping with the instantly claimed ranges,
respectively.
The difference between claim 12 of' 163 and instant claim 1 is that claim 12 of 163 is silent on
the composition comprising an impact modifier.
However, as shown by para.7, Kim discloses that a composition comprising a polymer matrix and
filler in the amount overlapping with the ranges of claim 12 of' 163, respectively. Kim further discloses
the composition comprising impact modifier from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%. One ordinary skilled
artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to incorporate the
impact modifier taught by Kim to the composition of claim 12 of' 163 because Kim discloses that impact
modifier helps to improve the impact strength and flexibility of the polymer composition ([0048]).
Further, Kim discloses that the composition exhibits a tensile elongation from about 3% to about
10% and a Charpy notched impact strength of greater than about 0.5 kJ/m2 to 20 kJ/m2 ([0011]),
overlapping the claimed ranges, respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, claim 13 of '163 claims the liquid crystalline polymer contains repeating
units derived from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 3 of' 163 claims the silica particles have a median particle size of
about 4μm or less.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Kim teaches the impact modifier may be an olefin copolymer that
contains a (meth)acrylic monomeric unit ([0049]).
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 16, given the discussion of Claim 1, one ordinary skilled artisan in the
art would reasonably infer that claim 12 of 163 in view of Kim teaches a substantially identical polymer
composition to that of instant claim 1, as such the claimed properties are necessarily present. "Products of
identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and
its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the
properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.0111).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Kim teaches a wide range of liquid crystalline polymer that can be used, but fails to disclose or suggest the specific monomer combinations and narrowly tailored ranges now required by amended claim 1. (p9, first paragraph of the Remarks).
Examiner’s answer: Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range (MPEP § 2144.05 III A). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02(d)(II). The tables below show Applicant tested only polymers from 63.2 wt.% to 65.6 wt.%, inorganic filler only at 30 wt. %, impact factor at 1 to 4 wt.%. And the preferred LCP has HBA and HNA at one mol.% each. As such, doubts are raised as to the criticality of the claimed ranges.
Applicant’s argument: the instant example data are commensurate in scope with the currently amended claim 1.
Examiner’s answer: Examiner summarized the instant exemplary compositions in the table below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The essential difference between the example compositions and the comparative example compositions is that the example compositions contain LCP5 while the comparative example compositions contain LCP1, LCP3, or LCP4. According to instant specification, the composites of LCP1, LCP3-LCP5 are:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LCP5 contains HBA and HNA, no NDA while instant claim 1 claims repeating units derived from
naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic and/or naphthenic dicarboxylic acids. The LCP1 and LCP3-LCP4 contain HBA 43 or 60 mol.% of individual polymer and LCP5 polymer contains 79 mol.% HBA. Therefore, data do not support a polymer containing 70 mol.% HBA and HNA in the claimed range would meet the claimed properties. In addition, the exemplary LCP5 contains HBA and HNA each at only one mol.%, whereas, mol.% of hydroxycarboxylic acid repeating units is claimed as 70 mol. % or more and mol. % of naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic is claimed from about 10 mol.% to about 30 mol.%.
Applicant’s argument: “Kim teaches that the liquid crystalline polymer should preferably be a "low naphthenic" polymer with a "minimal content of repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic acids and naphthenic dicarboxylic acids". Further, Kim's preferred ranges of naphthenic monomer content all drive toward a preference of from O mol.% to about 5 mol.% of the polymer (e.g., 0 mol. %). (p11 first para.)
Examiner’s answer: Applicant cited para. [0028] of Kim, which discloses “the liquid crystalline
polymer may be a "low naphthenic" polymer to the extent that it contains a minimal content of repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic acids and naphthenic dicarboxylic acids, such as naphthalene-2,6-dicarboxylic acid ("NDA"), 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid ("HNA"), or combinations thereof. That is, the total amount of repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic and/or
dicarboxylic acids (e.g., NDA, HNA, or a combination of HNA and NDA) is typically no more than 30 mol. %, in some embodiments no more than about 15 mol. %, in some embodiments no more than about 10 mol. %, in some embodiments no more than about 8 mol. %, and in some embodiments, from 0 mol. % to about 5 mol. % of the polymer ( e.g., 0 mol. % ).” Therefore, Kim discloses that the repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic acids and naphthenic dicarboxylic acids can be up to 30 mol.% of the polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763