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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8-9, 16-17, 21, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa and Asahara (US Patent Application 2010/0314581 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Yonezawa) and evidence provided by Celanese (“Vectra LCP,” published 2013, hereinafter Celanese-Vectra).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-9, 21, 24, and 28, Yonezawa teaches a liquid crystal polyester (LCP) blend comprising 100 parts of two liquid crystal polymers, 0.1 to 100 parts of polyphenylene ether (polyphenylene oxide), 0.1 – 300 parts of calcium titanate, and a combination of glass fiber and glass beads (silica), where the total amount of the calcium titanate, glass fiber, and glass beads (silica) is 0.1 to 400 parts (Abstract and paragraphs 0084, 0087, and 0095).
Thus, Yonezawa teaches LCP blend compositions comprising 16.7 (100/(100+100+300+100)) to 99.8 (100/(100+0.1+0.1+0)) wt.% LCP, 0.2 (0.1/(0.1+100+0.1+0)) to 50 (100/(100+100+0.1)) polyphenylene ether (polyethylene oxide), 0.02 (0.1/(0.1+100+100+0.1+399.9)) to 75 wt.% (300/(300+100+0.1+0)) calcium titanate, and 0 to 80 wt.% (399.9/(399.9+100+0.1+0.1)) glass fiber and glass beads.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative amounts of the various components in his LCP blend composition from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Yonezawa because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
In light of the overlap between the plastic and that disclosed by Yonezawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plastic that is both disclosed by Yonezawa and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Yonezawa teaches the elements of claim 1, and Yonezawa teaches his LCP blend composition contains a lubricant (paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 17, Yonezawa teaches the elements of claim 1, and Yonezawa teaches LCP blend compositions with DTUL values of 223-264°C (Table 3), and his LCP blend compositions have flexural strength values of 133-171 MPa (Table 3).
However, Yonezawa does not disclose tensile strength values for his LCP blend compositions.
As evidenced by Celanese-Vectra, the tensile strength for glass-filled (reinforced) liquid crystal polymer is over 100 MPa (page 17, Figure 3.1.4).
Given that embodiments of the LCP blend composition taught by Yonezawa are predominantly LCP resin and the cited tensile strength for glass-filled (reinforced) LCP being well above the claimed values, it is the examiner’s position that the LCP blend composition taught by Yonezawa would have the claimed tensile strength.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa and Asahara (US Patent Application 2010/0314581 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Yonezawa) in view of Sun et al. (CN 105860037 A, published 17 Aug. 2016, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 10, Yonezawa teaches the elements of claim 9.
Yonezawa does not disclose the size of his glass beads (silica).
Sun teaches the inclusion of 1 to 70 parts of a non-fibrous reinforcing filler, such as glass beads (silica particles) (Abstract, claim 12, and paragraph 0050). Sun teaches the average particle size of the silica particle is 0.001 to 50 µm (paragraph 0050).
Given that Yonezawa and Sun are drawn to LCP resin compositions containing glass beads, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate glass beads of the size taught by Sun in the LCP polyester composition taught by Yonezawa. Since Yonezawa and Sun are both drawn to LCP resins compositions containing glass beads, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating glass beads of the size taught by Sun in the LCP polyester composition taught by Yonezawa. Further, Sun teaches that if the particle size is less than 0.001 µm, the LCP composition has poor processability, and when the particle size is greater than 50 µm, the surface appearance of the molded product is poor (paragraph 0050).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a size of glass beads (silica) from the overlapping portions of the range taught by Sun because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa and Asahara (US Patent Application 2010/0314581 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Yonezawa) in view of He (CN 110655792 A, published 07 Jan. 2020, hereinafter He) and evidence provided by Celanese (“Vectra LCP,” published 2013, hereinafter Celanese-Vectra) and evidence provided by Lenntech (“Glass,” accessed 08 May 2025, hereinafter Lenntech).
Regarding claims 11-12, Yonezawa teaches the elements of claim 1, and Yonezawa teaches the inclusion of glass fibers in his composition (paragraphs 0086-0087).
Yonezawa does not disclose the type and diameter of the glass fibers.
He teaches a low-dielectric laser direct structuring composite material suitable for 5G communications comprising borosilicate E glass fibers with a diameter of 7 to 20 µm (claims 1 and 3 and paragraphs 0026 and 0028).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the diameter of the glass fibers from the overlapping portions of the range taught by He because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
As evidenced by Lenntech, the content of silica in borosilicate glass is 70-81 wt.% (page 3, table).
Given that Yonezawa and He are drawn to LCP resin compositions containing glass fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate glass fibers of the type and size taught by He in the LCP polyester composition taught by Yonezawa. Since Yonezawa and He are both drawn to LCP resins compositions containing glass fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating glass fibers of the type and size taught by He in the LCP polyester composition taught by Yonezawa. Further, He teaches “[t}hrough the use of specific glass fibers, the dielectric constant of the composite material is significantly reduced, the heat deformation temperature and tensile strength are significantly increased, and the comprehensive performance of the material is significantly improved” (paragraph 0026).
Claims 14-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa and Asahara (US Patent Application 2010/0314581 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Yonezawa) in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals,“ 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and evidence provided by Celanese (“Vectra LCP,” published 2013, hereinafter Celanese-Vectra).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 23, Yonezawa teaches a liquid crystal polyester (LCP) blend comprising 100 parts of two liquid crystal polymers, 0.1 to 100 parts of polyphenylene ether (polyphenylene oxide), 0.1 – 300 parts of calcium titanate, and a combination of glass fiber, glass beads (silica), and titanium oxide, where the total amount of the calcium titanate, glass fiber, glass beads (silica), and titanium oxide is 0.1 to 400 parts (Abstract and paragraphs 0084, 0087, and 0095).
Thus, Yonezawa teaches LCP blend compositions comprising 0 to 80 wt.% (399.9/(399.9+100+0.1+0.1)) of glass fiber, glass beads, and titanium oxide.
Holtzen teaches the use of less than 15 wt.% of titanium dioxide as a pigment in plastic matrices (page 151, 10.5 Incorporation of titania pigments into polymers section, 1st paragraph).
Given that Yonezawa and Holtzen are drawn to thermoplastic compositions comprising titanium dioxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amount of titanium dioxide as taught by Holtzen as the amount of titanium dioxide in the LCP blend taught by Yonezawa. Since Yonezawa and Holtzen are both drawn to thermoplastic compositions with titanium dioxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the amount of titanium dioxide as taught by Holtzen as the amount of titanium dioxide in the LCP blend as taught by Yonezawa. Further, Holtzen teaches that titanium dioxide loadings rarely exceed 15 wt.% ((page 151, 10.5 Incorporation of titania pigments into polymers section, 1st paragraph), and titanium dioxide affects the rate of discoloration, and the rate of discoloration is a function of pigment loading (page 154, 1st paragraph and Figure 10.8).
Therefore, Yonezawa teaches embodiments of his LCP blend composition in which the total amount of glass fiber and glass beads (silica) is greater than 0 to 70 parts and the amount of titanium oxide is less than or equal to 40 parts.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative amounts of the various components in his LCP blend composition from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Yonezawa in view of Holtzen because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Thus, Yonezawa in view of Holtzen teaches embodiments in which calcium titanate and titanium dioxide are contained in the claimed amounts of claims 1, 15, and 21.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayska et al. (US Patent 4,981,919, published 01 Jan. 1991, hereinafter Mayska) in view of Chen et al. (“Mechanical and tribological properties of PA66/PPS blend. III. Reinforced with GF,” J.Appl.Poly.Sci., Vol. 102, pp. 523-529, published 2006, hereinafter Chen) and further in view of Musa (“Effect of glass powder on some mechanical properties of polymer matrix composite material,” J.Al-Nahrain U., Vol. 17, pp. 108-115, published Jun. 2014, hereinafter Musa) and further in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals,“ 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and evidence provided by AZO Materials (“E-Glass Fibre,” accessed 13 Feb. 2026, hereinafter AZO Materials), Stanford Advanced Materials (“GP5518 Glass Powder,” accessed 13 Feb. 2026, hereinafter Stanford, MakeItFrom (“Unfilled PPO,” accessed 13 Feb. 2026, hereinafter MakeItFrom), and PubChem (“Titanium dioxide,” accessed 13 Feb. 2026, hereinafter PubChem).
Regarding claims 26-27, Mayska teaches an end-capped thermally stable polyphenylene oxide (PPO) comprising glass fibers, glass powder (silica), and titanium dioxide (Abstract and col. 2, lines 12-19). Mayska teaches his PPO may be used alone (col. 2, lines 5-9); that is, without other thermoplastics.
Mayska does not disclose the amounts of the glass fibers, glass powder (silica), and titanium dioxide.
Chen teaches a thermoplastic composition with 20-30 vol.% glass fibers (Abstract).
Given that Mayska and Chen are drawn to thermoplastic compositions comprising glass fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amount of glass fibers as taught by Chen as the amount of glass fibers in the PPO taught by Chen. Since Mayska and Chen are both drawn to thermoplastic compositions with glass fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the amount of glass fibers as taught by Chen as the amount of glass fibers in the PPO as taught by Mayska. Further, Chen teaches that the mechanical properties of his thermoplastic composition with 20-30 vol.% glass fibers had greatly increased mechanical properties (Abstract).
Musa teaches the inclusion of 10-20 vol.% of glass powder to polymer matrix composite materials (Abstract).
Given that Mayska and Musa are drawn to thermoplastic compositions comprising glass powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amount of glass powder as taught by Musa as the amount of glass powder in the PPO taught by Mayska in view of Chen. Since Mayska and Musa are both drawn to thermoplastic compositions with glass powder, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the amount of glass powder as taught by Musa as the amount of glass powder in the PPO as taught by Mayska in view of Chen. Further, Musa teaches the addition of 10 and 20 vol.% glass powder to a resin leads to greater mechanical properties, such as bending, Shore D hardness, and impact strength (Abstract).
Holtzen teaches the use of less than 15 wt.% of titanium dioxide as a pigment in plastic matrices (page 151, 10.5 Incorporation of titania pigments into polymers section, 1st paragraph).
Given that Mayska and Holtzen are drawn to thermoplastic compositions comprising titanium dioxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amount of titanium dioxide as taught by Holtzen as the amount of titanium dioxide in the PPO taught by Mayska in view of Chen and further in view of Musa. Since Mayska and Holtzen are both drawn to thermoplastic compositions with titanium dioxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the amount of titanium dioxide as taught by Holtzen as the amount of titanium dioxide in the PPO as taught by Mayska in view of Chen in view of Musa. Further, Holtzen teaches that titanium dioxide loadings rarely exceed 15 wt.% ((page 151, 10.5 Incorporation of titania pigments into polymers section, 1st paragraph), and titanium dioxide affects the rate of discoloration, and the rate of discoloration is a function of pigment loading (page 154, 1st paragraph and Figure 10.8).
As evidenced by MakeItFrom, the density of PPO is 1.1 g/cm3 (page 4, table).
As evidenced by AZO Materials, the density of E-glass fibers is 2.6 g/cm2 (page 1, table).
As evidenced by Stanford, the density of glass powder is 2.65 g/cm3.
As evidence by PubChem, the density of titanium dioxide is 4.23 g/cm3 (page 15)
Therefore, the amount of PPO, glass fibers, glass powder, and titanium dioxide in the PPO composition of Mayska in view of Chen and further in view of Musa and further in view of Holtzen is about:
PPO: 26 wt% ((100%-20%-30%-15%/4.23)*1.1/((100%-20%-30%-15%/4.23)*1.1+20%*2.65+30%*2.6+15%)) to 50 wt.%((100%-10%-20%-0%)*1.1/(100%-10%-20%--0%)*1.1+10%*2.65+20%*2.6+0))
Glass fibers: 29 wt% (20*2.6/((100%-20%-20%-15%/4.23)*1.1+20%*2.65+20%*2.6+15%)) to 61 wt.%(30%*2.6/(100%-10%-30%-0%)*1.1+10%*2.65+30%*2.6+0))
Glass powder: 15 wt% (10*2.65/((100%-10%-30%-15%/4.23)*1.1+10%*2.65+30%*2.6+15%)) to 31 wt.%(20%*2.65/(100%-20%-20%-0%)*1.1+20%*2.65+20%*2.6+0))
Titanium dioxide: less than 15 wt.%
Total amount of glass fibers and glass powder: 47 to 70 wt.%
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative amounts of the various components of the PPO composition from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Chen, Musa, and Holtzen because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa and Asahara (US Patent Application 2010/0314581 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Yonezawa) in view of Tawara and Izumida (JP 3578570 B2, published 20 Oct. 2004, hereinafter Tawara) and evidence provided by Celanese (“Vectra LCP,” published 2013, hereinafter Celanese-Vectra).
Regarding claim 29, Yonezawa teaches the elements of claim 1.
Yonezawa does not disclose a surface roughness.
Tawara teaches a molded product comprising a thermoplastic resin and an inorganic fiber, in which the surface of the mold has a surface roughness Rmax of 0.03 µm or less (claim 3).
It is the examiner’s position that an Rmax roughness level of 0.03 µm or less would correspond to having a roughness Ra value of well below the 6 µm limitation of claim 29.
Given that Yonezawa and Tawara are drawn to polyester-based resins comprising glass fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mold with a surface roughness value taught by Tawara in the LCP polyester composition taught by Yonezawa. Since Yonezawa and Tawara are both drawn to polyester-based resins containing glass fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a mold with a surface roughness value taught by Tawara in the LCP polyester composition taught by Yonezawa. Further, Tawara teaches If the surface roughness Rmax exceeds 0.03 μm, the surface smoothness (image clarity) may not be satisfied (page 15, 2nd paragraph).
Further, it is the examiner’s position that having a mold roughness of the value taught by Tawara would result in the surface of the molded resin having a surface roughness well below the claimed value, since Tawara sets this roughness limit in order to achieve a mirror finish on the molded part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Jan. 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection, which are presented above.
Applicant amended claims 1, 26, and 28, cancelled claim 4, and added claim 29.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art does not teach the elements of amended claim 1.
However, as presented above, Yonezawa teaches the elements of amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that the new claim 29 is not obvious based on the applied prior art, and this low roughness is based on the discovery by the applicant that the claimed plastic can be chemically eroded to generate a low surface roughness.
However, as presented above, Tawara teaches the claimed surface roughness in order to achieve a mirror-like surface on a molded article.
Further, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is 571-272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET. 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, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787