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 .
Specification
The revised abstract as filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funatsu et al. US 2011/0318982 A1.
Funatsu teaches liquid crystal polyester (LCP) fibers which are subjected to solid phase polymerization (Title and abstract).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 and 10-11, Funatsu teaches liquid crystal polyester (reference example 1, Table 1, page 22), derived from 54 mol% 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (instant claim 3), 16 mol% dihydroxybiphenyl, 7 mol% hydroquinone, 15 mol% terephthalic acid, and 8 mol% isophthalic acid, which is melt extruded, spun into a fiber and further subjected to solid phase polymerization (paras [0238]-[0240]). Funatsu discloses the strength value (corresponding to applicant’s tenacity) of the spun fiber to be 21.8 cN/dtex, which meets the claimed requirement (Example 1, page 25, Table 3, wherein Example 1 teaches using the same composition noted in reference Example 1).
Funatsu does not discuss the total amount of carboxyphenyl terminal groups and their ratio based on the total carboxy end groups (CEG). Funatsu also does not address the elastic modulus variation. However, Funatsu liquid crystal polyester fiber Example 1, is identical to applicant’s example 12, where the same monomers, in the same amount are utilized to create the LCP fiber. Funatsu utilizes a preheating step followed by a solid phase polymerization which is conducted in a step wise manner, where the temperature is first maintained at 240 oC for 3 hours and further increased to a final temperature of 300 oC (para [0240], and page 25, Example 1, Table 3). Funatsu’s preheating step would be expected to decrease the moisture level, which would decrease the high temperature hydrolysis side reactions and thus the LCP fiber of Example 1 would be expected to possess the required carboxyphenyl terminal groups and the required ratio based on total CEG (instant claims 1, 4 and 11). Funatsu discloses the utilization of the LCP fibers for the creation of woven fabric (paras [0054]-[0057]) (instant claim 10), which is the same end use application as the instant specification (page 28, last para; page 29, first para). Since the prior art fibers are being utilized for similar end products, such as woven fabric, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to optimize the fiber such that they exhibit similar level of initial modulus variation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/28/2026 have been fully considered, please see the response below.
Applicant argues that the Funatsu’s Example 1 would not be expected to have the recited low initial elastic modulus variation, as the applicant’s instantly claimed liquid crystal polyester fiber is not anticipated or obvious over Funatsu, because Funatsu does not teach or suggest the specific initial elastic modulus variation.
Applicant adds that in order to obtain the claimed liquid crystal polyester fiber, a preheating process before the solid phase polymerization is performed. Further a pulling ratio of 1.001 to 1.200, enables generation of a polyester with a reduced elastic modulus variation. Applicant notes that continuous process at the pulling ratio of 1.001 to 1.200 is needed to generate the desired initial elastic modulus variation. Applicant discusses that Example 10 which has a pulling ratio of 1.000 does not meet the required initial elastic modulus variation %age values. Applicant further illustrates that Instant Example 13 generated by a batch-type heat treatment does not satisfy the initial elastic modulus variation requirement. Applicant finally submits that Funatsu’s Example 1 was prepared in a process which is substantially different from the process of Applicant’s Example 12, and just like Instant Example 13 would not be expected to have the initial elastic modulus variation of less than 3.0%.
In response applicant is reminded that the claims require a product which is “a liquid crystal polyester fiber”, and a product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case Funatsu’s example 1 are derived from identical monomers with identical amounts, which is the same as provided by Instant Example 12. Funatsu’s also performs a preheating step from room temperature to 240 oC under nitrogen flow, which would decrease the moisture level, are reduce the high temperature hydrolytic side reactions and thus the CEG groups would be expected to remain low.
Applicant’s argument for Instant Example 10 is convincing when Example 10 is compared to Instant Example 1, and the only difference in the process condition is the pulling ratio. Instant Example 10 does not meet the initial modulus variation due to a low pulling ratio. As noted above in the discussion, the 102 rejection over Funatsu is withdrawn, instead the claims are now are rendered obvious over Funatsu. Reference Funtasu teaches a fiber stretching ratio (which is the same as pulling ratio) of 0.98 to 1.1 (para [0148]) to manage crystallinity and abrasion resistance. Funatsu’s stretching ratio overlaps applicant’s pulling ratio. Thus, in order to improve the crystallinity and abrasion resistance of the fiber a person having ordinary skill in the art would utilize a stretching ratio of 1.05 (which is within Funatsu’s recommended range) to attain the required initial modulus variation %, so that the fiber can be optimized to be used for the same end use application of a woven fiber as the instant application.
However, applicant’s Example 13 utilizes a batch type solid phase polymerization performed at a temperature of 250 deg C for 16 hours which is substantially longer in time as compared to instant Example 1, and where the temperature utilized for continuous solid phase polymerization is that of 290 oC. Since the solid phase polymerization for instant Example 13 is conducted for 16 hours a higher polymer crystallinity would be expected, which is also indicated by applicant’s data, where Example 13 has significantly higher melting point of 326 oC vs that of instant Example 1 of 309 oC , and thus higher modulus variation % for Example 13 would be an expected outcome (Table 5 continued). Funatsu’s Example 1 which uses different monomers and a different step wise temperature profile for the solid phase polymerization which is conducted for a much lower time interval (3 hours) than applicant’s Example 13, would be expected to behave similar to instant Example 12 (and not Applicant’s Example 13). While the applicant seems to suggest that continuous solid phase polymerization is crucial for achieving the required modulus variation%, it is noted that Funatsu recommends running the fibers through high temperature heat treatment continuously so as to enhance their uniformity and decrease fusion bonding (paras [0049], [0121] and [0145]), thus guiding a skilled artisan towards a continuous solid phase polymerization process.
Thus, in the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art in order to improve productivity, uniformity and minimize fusion bonding would strive to utilize a continuous solid phase polymerization for Funatsu’1 Example 1, and thus would be expected to achieve the desired initial modulus variation %. Applicant’s attention is brought to: "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments against Funatsu are not compelling, and the required liquid crystal polyester fiber is fully within the purview of reference Funatsu. Funastu discloses overlapping pulling ratio of the fibers as well as guides a skilled artisan towards a continuous solid phase polymerization process. Thus, Funatsu continues to provide the support for maintaining the rejection.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/HEIDI R KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765