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 Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on March 2, 2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended with the limitations of the previous claim 17. The new grounds of rejection set forth below simply move the arguments from the previous claim 17 into the present claim 1; thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenchi et al (US 2013/0052447) in view of Yoshiyuki et al (JP 08-283952, please see machine translation for English equivalent and mapping) with evidence provided by Ciuperca (US 2014/0260034).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Grenchi teaches a plateable polymer composition ([0108]) comprising 100 parts by weight of a polymer matrix that includes a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer (Abstract) and a ceramic fiber ([0088]). The ceramic fiber is present in the amount from 2 to 40 % by weight ([0090]). The ceramic fiber can be a silica-based fiber ([0088]) and Grenchi teaches that wollastonite can be added as an additive ([0092]). As evidenced by Ciuperca, wollastonite is a ceramic which is also a silicate ([0074]).
Grenchi teaches the addition of other additives ([0093]), however, fails to teach the incorporation of a noble metal catalyst.
Yoshiyuki teaches a noble metal catalyst, for example made from palladium (Abstract) which is incorporated into a resin composition (Abstract) such as liquid crystal polymers ([0006]). Yoshiyuki teaches that the catalyst is added in the amount from 0.1 to 50 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the base resin (page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the noble metal catalyst of Yoshiyuki as an additive of Grenchi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of shortening the depositing time of copper during the metal plating process (Yoshiyuki, Abstract).
Regarding claims 2-3, Grenchi teaches that the polymer composition exhibits a tensile break strain of greater than 0.5% ([0100]).
Regarding claim 4, Grenchi teaches that the polymer composition has the desired melt viscosity ([0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Grenchi teaches that the polymer composition has a melting temperature from about 250 to 400 C ([0101]).
Regarding claim 6, Grenchi teaches that the polymer composition exhibits the recited deflection temperature ([0101]).
Regarding claim 7, Grenchi teaches that the liquid crystalline polymer constitutes 30 to 95 wt.% of the polymer composition ([0004]).
Regarding claims 8-13, Grenchi teaches that the liquid crystalline polymer contains repeating units such as 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and/or terephthalic acid and/or hydroquinone ([0037]) and is wholly aromatic ([0037]).
Regarding claim 14-15, Grenchi teaches that the repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic acid such as 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid is present in the amount from 1 to 30 mol % ([0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Grenchi teaches that HBA is present in the amount from 40 to 90 mol % and that HNA is present in the amount from 1 to 30 mol % ([0038]) and therefore, it would overlap the claimed molar ratio range.
Regarding claim 18, Grenchi teaches that the fibers have a volume average length of 50 to 400 microns ([0089]).
Regarding claim 19, Grenchi teaches that the fibers have an aspect ratio of 2 to 50 ([0089]).
Regarding claim 20, Grenchi teaches that the fibers have a diameter of 10 to 35 microns ([0089]).
Regarding claims 23-24, modified Grenchi teaches that the noble metal component is supported by a crushed filler (Yoshiyuki, purpose) such as a silicate (Yoshiyuki, page 2 bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 26, Grenchi teaches that the catalyst constitutes 0.1 to 50 parts by weight per 100 parts of the base resin (Yoshiyuki, page 3).
Regarding claim 27, Grenchi teaches that the fibers can be glass, but need not be glass and can be silicates instead and therefore, the composition can be free of glass fibers ([0088]).
Regarding claim 28, Grenchi teaches that the composition is free of laser activatable additives.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in paragraphs 3-5 of the office action mailed on October 30, 2025 have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on March 2, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: The claimed composition is patentable because the composition exhibits unexpectedly advantageous results. Comparing comparative example 1 and example 1, the use of silicate fibers provides the composition with better tensile properties and weld line tensile properties that the non-fibrous mineral filler. The use of the silicate fibers allows parts molded from the composition to have a much better surface properties that with glass fibers. The amendment of claim 1 renders the claim commensurate in scope with that of the claimed invention.
Examiner’s response: Again, a single example is does not provide enough data to show unexpected results over the entire scope of the claimed invention. For example, what about different loading quantities of the silicate fiber or the catalyst? What about different lengths of the fibers? It is noted that different catalysts are used in comparative examples vs the inventive examples, so comparing the glass vs wollastonite properties can not be fully realized because the rest of the composition does not remain constant. Therefore, applicant’s argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights