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
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 3/18/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-3, 6 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14-20 are canceled and new claims 21-28 have been added as requested. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks are found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections based on the cited prior art of Clausi et al., US 20090053490 A1. Specifically, the cited prior art does not teach preparing first and second semi-solid compositions wherein each first (e.g., polyol) and second (e.g., isocyanate) semi-solid component comprises the claimed amount of filler and further wherein said first and second semi-solid components are mixed to form a polymer composition. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejection is set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hosoda et al., US 2007/0200094 A1 in view of Kumar et al., US 20170267585 A1.
With specific regard to claims 1-3,5,6,8,9, and 21, the published patent application issued to Hosoda et al., teach a liquid-crystalline polymer composition comprising first and second liquid-crystalline polymers (title and abstract). Hosoda et al., teach that the liquid-crystalline polymer composition further comprises fillers (organic and inorganic) such as glass, carbon, kaolin clay, various fibers (reads on claim 8), oxides, metals, flakes or calcium carbonate (paragraphs 0064-0067). Hosoda et a., teach that two or more kinds of fillers can be used together (paragraph 0068). With regard to the claimed semi-solid limitations, the Examiner is of the position that liquid-crystalline polymers would behave as semi-solids since they exist in a mesophase giving them a semi-solid like behavior. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. With regard to the amount of filler, Hosoda et al., teach that the amount of filler in the composition can range from 1-80 % by wt. (paragraph 0069). With regard to the claimed method of preparing a first semi-solid component and a second semi-solid component wherein the components are mixed to form a polymer composition, Hosoda et al., teach that a method in which the filler is compounded into the respective first liquid crystalline polymer and the second liquid crystalline polymer and these are mixed with an extruder, kneader and the like (paragraph 0082). Hosoda et al., further teach that the liquid crystalline polymer composition can further be easily molded (e.g., extrusion or compression molding) having a desired shape (fiber/film) (paragraph 0083). With regard to the specific amount of filler added to the first and second semi-solid components, Hosoda et al., does not expressly teach how much filler is present in each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions; however, the Examiner is of the position that would be within the skill of a worker in the art to add the same amount of filler to each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions. Since Hosoda et al., teach that the filler can in amount ranging from 1-80 wt. %, the Examiner is of the position that based on the desired end use it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to add at least 20 wt. % of filler to each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions since the total amount of filler can be as high as 80 wt. %. Motivation to add the same or similar amounts of filler to each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions is found in the desire to achieve a desirable balance of composition properties and/or achieve a specific set of properties. Moreover, based on the disclosure of Hosoda et al., directed to using two or more types fillers the Examiner is of the position that it is well within the scope of the Hosoda et al., composition for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the first liquid crystalline and second liquid crystalline compositions can comprise varying amounts of filler and filler types (e.g., mixture of organic and inorganic fillers).
Hosoda et al., does not teach the claimed net shape.
The published patent application issued to Kumar et al., teach a polyurethane-based composition used to form net shape composites (title and abstract). Said composition comprises polyol and isocyanate components and an amount of filler (fly ash) ranging from greater than 50 wt. % (up to 90 wt. %) and a coarse filler in amount of greater than 80 wt. % (abstract and paragraph 0006-0007). Kumar et al., teach polymeric composites that contain organic and/or inorganic filler materials have become desirable for a variety of uses because of their excellent mechanical properties and weathering stability. Kumar et al., teach that a proper blend of polymeric and inorganic materials provides for a composite with optimal properties at a desirably low cost (paragraphs 0006-0007). Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide a net shape article with excellent mechanical properties and weathering stability it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the composition of Hosoda et al., into a net structure as taught by Kumar et al. The Examiner is of the position that both cited references are analogous since they are concerned with forming filled compositions and molded articles.
With regard to the claimed yield stress of 50 Pa as set forth in claim 1, Hosoda et al., does not expressly teach the claimed yield stress value. However, it is reasonable to expect that the claimed yield stress property would be exhibited once the composition and article of Hosoda et al., is provided. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials such as the claimed first and second semi-solid components (liquid crystalline) and filler and the use of like processes such as separately preparing first and second semi-solid components wherein each component comprises the claimed amount of filler and mixing said first and second components together and further manufacturing net shape articles which would result in the claimed stress yield value. The burden is shifted to Applicant to prove otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 5, Hosoda et al., does not expressly teach the claimed yield stress value of 2000 Pa to 5000 Pa. However, it is reasonable to expect that the claimed yield stress property would be exhibited once the composition and article of Hosoda et al., is provided. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials such as the claimed first and second semi-solid components (liquid crystalline) and filler and the use of like processes such as separately preparing first and second semi-solid components wherein each component comprises the claimed amount of filler and mixing said first and second components together and further manufacturing net shape articles which would result in the claimed stress yield value. The burden is shifted to Applicant to prove otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
4. Claim(s) 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hosoda et al., US 2007/0200094 A1 in view of Kumar et al., US 20170267585 A1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Clausi et al., US 20090053490 A1.
The combination of Hosoda et al., in view of Kumar et al., does not teach the claimed polyol and isocyanate components.
With regard to the limitations pertaining to the claimed polyol and isocyanate components of claim 7, the Examiner is of the position that based on desired end use the method of preparing first and second filled polymer compositions and mixing said first and second compositions together and further molding said composition into various shapes can be used with other polymer components such as the claimed polyol and isococyante. For example, Clausi et al., teach forming semi-rigid or flexible composition (e.g., semi-solid) by blending the polyurethane pre-polymer comprising polyol and polyisocyanate with filler. The Examiner is of the position this meets the first semi-solid component with a second semi-solid component to form a polymer composition, wherein the first semi-solid component comprises a first portion (polyol) and a filler, and the second semi-solid component comprises a second portion (isocyanate) and a filler that is the same or different from the filler of the first semi-solid component. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ the method of preparing first and second filled compositions, mixing said first and second filled compositions together and further molding said composition into various shapes as taught by the combination of Hosoda et al., and Kumar et al., with polyol and isocyanate components as taught by Clausi et al. Motivation to specifically employ polyol and isocyanate can be found in the desire to form a specific type of end product having specific properties.
With regard to claim 10, Clausi et al., teach that the composition material is introduced into a mold cavity, or extruded through a die, calendared, sprayed on a surface, or used in some other processing method, and is caused to react. The composition may be pumped, blown, sprayed, or poured into the mold cavity, depending on the physical nature of the pre-polymer mixture. To improve the processing speed the forming tool may be heated thereby promoting a faster reaction (paragraph 0083).
With regard to claim 11, Clausi et al., teach that surface features such as a variety of textures may be applied to the tool surface to be molded into the final composite product (paragraph 0086).
5. Claim(s) 12, 13 and 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hosoda et al., US 2007/0200094 A1 in view of Clausi et al., US 20090053490 A1.
With specific regard to claims 12 and 22-28, the published patent application issued to Hosoda et al., teach a liquid-crystalline polymer composition comprising first and second liquid-crystalline polymers (title and abstract). Hosoda et al., teach that the liquid-crystalline polymer composition further comprises fillers (organic and inorganic) such as glass, carbon, kaolin clay, various fibers (reads on claim 8), oxides, metals, flakes or calcium carbonate (paragraphs 0064-0067). Hosoda et a., teach that two or more kinds of fillers can be used together (paragraph 0068). With regard to the claimed semi-solid limitations, the Examiner is of the position that liquid-crystalline polymers would behave as semi-solids since they exist in a mesophase giving them a semi-solid like behavior. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. With regard to the amount of filler, Hosoda et al., teach that the amount of filler in the composition can range from 1-80 % by wt. (paragraph 0069). With regard to the claimed method of preparing a first semi-solid component and a second semi-solid component wherein the components are mixed to form a polymer composition, Hosoda et al., teach that a method in which the filler is compounded into the respective first liquid crystalline polymer and the second liquid crystalline polymer and these are mixed with an extruder, kneader and the like (paragraph 0082). Hosoda et al., further teach that the liquid crystalline polymer composition can be easily molded (e.g., extrusion or compression molding) having a desired shape (fiber/film) (paragraph 0083). With regard to the specific amount of filler added to the first and second semi-solid components, Hosoda et al., does not expressly teach how much filler is present in each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions; however, the Examiner is of the position that would be within the skill of a worker in the art to add the same amount of filler to each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions. Since Hosoda et al., teach that the filler can in amount ranging from 1-80 wt. %, the Examiner is of the position that based on the desired end use it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to add at least 20 wt. % of filler to each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions since the total amount of filler can be as high as 80 wt. %. Motivation to add the same amount of filler to each the first and second liquid crystalline polymer compositions is found in the desire to achieve a desirable balance of properties. Moreover, based on the disclosure of Hosoda et al., directed to using two or more types fillers the Examiner is of the position that it is well within the scope of the Hosoda et al., composition for a person of ordinary skill in the art to ecognize that the first liquid crystalline and second liquid crystalline compositions can comprise varying amounts of filler and filler types (e.g., mixture of organic and inorganic fillers).
Hosoda et al., does not teach the claimed net shape.
Hosoda et al., does not teach the claimed polyol and isocyanate.
With specific regard to the limitation pertaining to the claimed net shape, the published patent application issued to Clausi et al., teach a highly filled semi-rigid or flexible composition comprising a polyurethane pre-polymer comprising polyol and polyisocyante (title, abstract, paragraphs 0012, 0018-0029). With regard to the amount of filler, Clausi et al., teach using at least 25 wt. %, preferably up to least half the weight of the resin material (paragraph 0042). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the composition of Hosoda et al., into a net structure as taught by Clausi et al. The Examiner is of the position that both cited references are analogous since they are concerned with forming filled compositions and molded articles. The motivation to form specific net shape is found in the desired end use of the molded product.
With regard to the limitations pertaining to the claimed polyol and isocyanate components of claims 12, 23 and 24, the published patent application issued to Hosoda et al., does not teach using these specific components; however, the Examiner is of the position that based on desired end use the method of preparing first and second filled polymer compositions and mixing said first and second compositions together and further molding said composition into various shapes can be used with other polymer components such as the claimed polyol and isococyante. For example, Clausi et al., teach forming semi-rigid or flexible composition (e.g., semi-solid) by blending the polyurethane pre-polymer comprising polyol and polyisocyanate with filler. With regard to claims 23 and 24, Clausi et al., teach the claimed polyol and di-isocyanates (abstract and paragraphs 0018-0019).The Examiner is of the position this meets the first semi-solid component with a second semi-solid component to form a polymer composition, wherein the first semi-solid component comprises a first portion (polyol) and a filler, and the second semi-solid component comprises a second portion (isocyanate) and a filler that is the same or different from the filler of the first semi-solid component. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ the method of preparing first and second filled compositions, mixing said first and second filled compositions together and further molding said composition into various shapes with polyol and isocyanate components as taught by Clausi et al. Motivation to specifically employ polyol and isocyanate can be found in the desire to form a specific type of end product having specific properties. With regard to claim 28 it appears that the compositions can be formulated such that they are devoid of foam. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to the claimed yield stress of 50 Pa as set forth in claim 12, Clausi et al., does not expressly teach the claimed yield stress value. However, it is reasonable to expect that the claimed yield stress property would be exhibited once the composition and article of Clausi et al., is provided. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials such as the claimed first and second semi-solid components and filler and the use of like processes such as blending first and second semi-solid components and filler together and manufacturing net shape articles which would result in the claimed stress yield value. The burden is shifted to Applicant to prove otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
6. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights