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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed June 24, 2025, with respect to the objection to claims 4 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to correct the informalities. Claim 5 has been cancelled, obviating the objection. Accordingly, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed June 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Lu et al. (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope of the claims, specifically incorporating limitations rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and also narrowing the recited group of fillers. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of over Lu et al. (US 20170145208, hereinafter referred to as “Lu”) in view of Jeol et al. (WO2019197587, hereinafter referred to as “Jeol”).
Applicant argues that Lu does not teach a composition simultaneously containing all components required by the composition as claimed and further that Lu does not disclose their contents. The Examiner contends that while Lu does not teach an exemplary composition comprising all components required by the claims, Lu does contemplate a composition comprising a PAEK/LCP mixture further comprising additives and further explicitly and separately contemplates at least the addition of a reinforcing fiber (i.e., a reinforcing agent) and mineral fillers (i.e., a nucleating agent). Lu explicitly discloses an amount for the reinforcing fiber ([0097]) and separately discloses a total amount of filler ([0093]). That is, Lu does not contemplate a list of fillers that merely contain a reinforcing fiber (i.e., a reinforcing agent) and mineral fillers (i.e., a nucleating agent), but rather contemplates each components as separate, suitable fillers for the composition. Therefore, considering the teachings of Lu with regard to an amount for a mineral filler which reads on the claimed nucleating agent, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include said mineral filler in an amount that overlaps with the claimed range based on either the total amount of filler taught by Lu ([0093]) or even when accounting for the total amount of filler excluding the range contemplated for the reinforcing fiber ([0097]). The Examiner notes that Lu does not explicitly teach wherein a filler comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon nanotubes and glass hollow filler as recited in the newly amended claim 1. This limitation is addressed within the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The limitation of “a weight average molecular weight of the polymer composition” recited in claim 10 is construed to include all of the components required by the composition recited in claim 1 (i.e., polymeric components polyaryletherketone and liquid crystal polymer, as well as inorganic nucleating agent, a reinforcing agent, and a filler).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20170145208, hereinafter referred to as “Lu”) in view of Jeol et al. (WO2019197587, hereinafter referred to as “Jeol”).
As to Claim 1: Lu teaches a polymer composition comprising a liquid crystalline polymer (Abstract and [0092]) and a polyaryletherketone (Abstract and [0093]). Lu further teaches that the composition may comprise a variety of fillers ([0094]) including:
mineral fillers which may be clay, mica, or wollastonite ([0098]), which read on the claimed inorganic nucleating agent according to the instant specification para. [24];
reinforcing fibers (i.e., a reinforcing agent) which may be, inter alia, glass fibers ([0094]);
wherein the total amount of fillers may be included in an amount of 5 wt% to 70 wt% ([0093]), which would yield an overlapping amount for each of the claimed inorganic nucleating agent and reinforcing agent. The Examiner notes that Lu does not contemplate a list of fillers that merely contain a reinforcing fiber (i.e., a reinforcing agent) and mineral fillers (i.e., a nucleating agent), but rather contemplates each components as separate, suitable fillers for the composition. Therefore, based on the disclosure of Lu, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ranges taught by Lu embrace the breadth of the ranges taught by Lu for a total amount of filler and would yield an overlapping amount with the claimed ranges (e.g., wherein a reinforcing fiber is present in an amount of 60 parts by weight as motivated by [0097] and the balance of the total amount of filler, such as up to 70 wt% is comprised of a mineral filler as motivated by [0092]-[0093]). In the case where claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Lu suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for an amount for fillers including a mineral filler (i.e., a nucleating agent) and a reinforcing fiber (i.e., reinforcing agent) within a PAEK-based composition amenable for facile melt processing (e.g., injection molding) while maintaining good mechanical properties ([0027]).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein a filler comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon nanotubes and glass hollow filler
Jeol teaches a polymeric material comprising at least one poly(aryl ether ketone) (Abstract) which may further comprise additives (A) such as nucleating agents and fillers (F) which may include carbon nanotubes ([0025] and [0027]). Jeol also contemplates that said carbon nanotube fillers may be used in combination with other fillers, such as glass fibers ([0027]). Jeol teaches that the filler which may be carbon nanotubes, glass fibers, or combinations thereof may be present in an amount of 0.1 to 45 wt% ([0027]). Lu and Jeol are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, melt processable and fiber reinforced PAEK-based polymer materials. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filler that is a carbon nanotube, such as that of Jeol, within the composition of Lu in addition to the reinforcing fiber that is a glass fiber ([0094] of Lu) and the motivation would have been that Jeol teaches that both glass fibers and carbon nanotubes are known within the art as additives/fillers for PAEK compositions for the purpose of reinforcing said PAEK composition and improving mechanical properties thereof ([0015]). While Lu only contemplates that a reinforcing fiber may be a glass fiber, combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06 I.). Furthermore, the amount taught by Jeol for a filler (F), which may be a combination of, e.g., glass fiber and carbon nanotube ([0027]), would overlap with the claimed range for each of a reinforcing agent (i.e., glass fiber) and a filler (i.e., carbon nanotube), considering the disclosure of Jeol would embrace 0 to 45 wt% of glass fiber and 0 to 45 wt% of carbon nanotubes ([0027]). In the case where claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range for an amount of each of a blend of additives, such as carbon nanotubes and glass fiber, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Jeol suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for an amount of a combination of fillers within a PAEK composition for reinforcing said PAEK composition and improving mechanical properties thereof ([0015]).
As to Claim 2: Lu and Jeol teach the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Lu further teaches that the composition comprises at least one polyaryletherketone and from about 1 to about 100 parts of at least one liquid crystalline polymer (LCP) per 100 parts of the polyaryletherketone (Claim 1 of Lu), which overlaps with the claimed weight ratio of the polyaryletherketone to LCP. In the case where claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Lu suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for a weight ratio or relative amounts of a polyaryletherketone to LCP within a polymer composition amenable for facile melt processing (e.g., injection molding) while maintaining good mechanical properties ([0027]).
As to Claim 3: Lu and Jeol teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lu further teaches that the polyaryletherketone may be polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) ([0052]).
As to Claim 4: Lu and Jeol teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lu further teaches that the liquid crystalline polymer may be an aromatic polyester containing aromatic ester repeat units represented by formula (V) ([0054]):
PNG
media_image1.png
137
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Y1 and Y2 may be O (i.e., a liquid crystal polyester ether), C(O) (i.e., a liquid crystal polyester carbonate), NHC(O) (i.e., a liquid crystal polyester polyamide) ([0057]).
As to Claim 9: Lu teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Lu further teaches that the composition may comprise calcium sulfate ([0094]), which is construed to read on the claimed inorganic acid salts (i.e., a salt formed from sulfuric acid and inorganic calcium).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20170145208, hereinafter referred to as “Lu”) in view of Jeol et al. (WO2019197587, hereinafter referred to as “Jeol) and further in view of Nair (US20160102173, hereinafter referred to as “Nair”).
As to Claim 10: Lu and Jeol teach the composition of claim 1.
Lu is silent towards the weight average molecular weight of the composition.
Nair teaches a related polyaryletherketone and thermoplastic compositions formed thereof (Abstract and [0007]) which may comprise liquid crystal polymer additives. Nair further teaches that the polyaryletherketone has a number average molecular weight of from about 2,000 g/mol to about 150,000 g/mol ([0099]). Lu and Nair are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely polyaryletherketone compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a molecular weight within the range of Nair (i.e., 2,000 g/mol to about 150,000 g/mol ([0099])) for the polyaryletherketone of Lu and the motivation would have been that Nair teaches that such a molecular weight is a suitable for a polyaryletherketone within a thermoplastic composition for melt processing (i.e., via injection molding) ([0105] of Nair), which is the object of the invention of Lu (Abstract of Lu). Lu teaches that the composition may comprise up to about 95 wt% of the polyaryletherketone ([0092]). In view of the proportion of the polyaryletherketone and the remaining required components of the composition taught by Lu (e.g., [0072], [0074], [0092]), the overall molecular weight of the polymer composition of Lu as modified by Nair would overlap with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been that the overlapping portion is a useable range for the molecular weight of a polyaryletherketone polymer composition with properties amenable for melt processing (e.g., injection molding).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 on (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.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767