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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3 and 11-12, in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse and made final (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 4-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “preferably” should be deleted in order to clearly define filler length and particle size. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al (JP 2015124276, of record, ‘276 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-3, ‘276 discloses a liquid crystal polyester (LCP) comprising a repeating unit of formula (1) formed from hydroxy-2,6-naphthoic acid and hydroxybenzoic acid; a repeating unit of formula (2) formed from terephthalic acid; and a repeating unit of formula (3) formed from 4,4’-dihydroxybiphenyl ([0092]-[0093], production example 8); wherein the repeating units have 48 mol% of repeating unit (1) with Ar1 being 2,6-naphthylene; 2 mol% of repeating unit with Ar1 being 1,4-phenylene; 25 mol% repeating unit (2) with Ar2 being 1,4- phenylene; and 25 mol% repeating unit with Ar3 being 4,4'-biphenylene. The LCP has a melting enthalpy of 1.74 J/g ([0093], Tm=350°C, ∆S=2.8x10-3 J/gK, ∆H=(350+273)x 2.8x10-3 =1.74), wherein the melting enthalpy is obtained by calculating a melting peak area from a second melting curve obtained by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC ([0076]).
Regarding claim 11, ‘276 also discloses a LCP composition comprising a 100 parts LCP with 43 parts reinforcing filler by weight, wherein the ∆H is 1.3 J/g ([0094], Table 1, comparative Example 4, LCP/filler =70/30).
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yokota et al (WO 2020/204125, of record, ‘125 hereafter) as evidenced by Miyamoto et al (JP 2015124276, of record, ‘276 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-3, ‘125 discloses a liquid crystal polyester (LCP) comprising a repeating unit of formula (1) formed from hydroxy-2,6-naphthoic acid and hydroxybenzoic acid; a repeating unit of formula (2) formed from terephthalic acid; and a repeating unit of formula (3) formed from 4,4’-dihydroxybiphenyl (Abstract, [0009], [0010]), production example 8); wherein the repeating units have 48 mol% of repeating unit (1) with Ar1 being 2,6-naphthylene; 2 mol% of repeating unit with Ar1 being 1,4-phenylene; 25 mol% repeating unit (2) with Ar2 being 1,4- phenylene; and 25 mol% repeating unit with Ar3 being 4,4'-biphenylene (Example 1) The LCP is identical to the LCP as disclosed in ‘276, wherein the LCP has a melting enthalpy of 1.74 J/g ([0093] of ‘276, Tm=350°C, ∆S=2.8x10-3 J/gK, ∆H=(350+273)x 2.8x10-3 =1.74), wherein the melting enthalpy is obtained by calculating a melting peak area from a second melting curve obtained by differential scanning calorimetry (see DSC ([0076] of ‘276).
Regarding claims 11-12, ‘125 also discloses a LCP composition comprising a 100 parts LCP with 32 parts of reinforcing filler by weight including a fibrous filler with average length being 80 microns and a particulate filler with average size being 25 microns ([0063], Table 2, Example 6); wherein the ∆H should be around 1.3 J/g as evidenced by ‘276 ([0094], Table 1, comparative Example 4 of ‘276).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights