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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims of Group I and II are directed to a chemical material. The claims of Group II are not directed to a process of manufacturing or use. This is not found persuasive because since as discussed in the restriction requirement as mailed on 02/20/2026 the liquid crystal resin (product) can be utilized as a blend additive and thus used in a materially different process instead of forming (or molding) a material. Applicant has not provided an argument that the alternate use of the resin (product of claims 1-17) as an additive in other polyesters cannot be accomplished. See MPEP 806.05(h).
The applicant simply adds that the Group I and II are sub-combination and combination and the resin for Group I is essential for Group II. Applicant’s remarks are acknowledged, but in the instant case, the restriction is proper since in the relation category of “A product and a process of using the product”, only one-way distinctness is needed to support a restriction requirement.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Ohtomo et al. US2012/0253003 A1.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Ohtomo teaches (para [0075]) synthesis of a wholly aromatic liquid crystalline polyester (Example 1) by reacting 0.29 mol fraction of 2-hydroxy-6-naphthoic acid, corresponding to formula (I) and 0.71 mol fraction of p-hydroxybenzoic acid, corresponding to formula (II). Ohtomo further discloses a heat treatment step to increase the molecular weight of the liquid crystal polyester and remove unreacted material (monomer) and acetic acid (para [0060]).
Ohtomo does not measure the thermal weight loss values as required by the applicant, however since identical monomers, and substantially identical procedure is utilized to create the liquid crystal polyester, the weight loss values would inherently be met by its disclosure. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, anticipation is seen evident. In the instant case Ohtomo’s Example 1 composition and subsequent heat treatment step would result in a composition which would be substantially identical to applicant’s (Table 1, Sample E3 or E4).
Regarding claims 4-6, Ohtomo does not provide the thermal degradation temperature at 1% thermal weight loss, however as discussed when addressing claim 1, Ohtomo teaches a liquid crystalline polyester derived from identical monomers and substantially identical procedure as instant preparation Example 1 (and Table 1, sample E3 or E4) and therefore expected to satisfy the desired degradation temperature.
Regarding claim 7, Ohtomo teaches (para [0067]) extrusion temperature of 240 to 320 oC. Since extrusion is carried out in a molten state it is indicative of the melting point of the liquid crystalline polymer, and reasonably be expected to overlap the claimed requirement. Additionally, as discussed when addressing claim 1, since Ohtomo teaches liquid crystalline polyester derived from identical monomers with substantially identical monomer fractions and substantially identical procedure as instant preparation example 1, the melting point range would inherently be met by its disclosure.
Regarding claims 10-17, as discussed when addressing claim 1, Ohtama teaches the required liquid crystal polyester, and corresponds to the unrecycled (virgin) polyester resin. The requirement of a recycled liquid crystal polymer resin is met by Ohtama’s disclosure since the chemical structure of both the unrecycled and recycled polymer are identical. Applicant is reminded that, "[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). For the instant claim 17 the presence of any amount of recycled polyester in the unrecycled polyester would be chemically indistinguishable. Thus, Ohtama’s Example 1 satisfies the claimed blend of recycled and unrecycled polymer resin.
Conclusion
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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights