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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to for containing grammatical errors. The following amendment is suggested by the examiner:
4. (Currently Amended) The resin composition according to claim 1, wherein the fluororesin has [[an]] a decomposition starting temperature
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interpreted claim 4 as if it was presented as the suggested amendment above.
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 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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hirose et al. (US 2002/0135893 A1) in view of Isogai et al. (US 2012/0035329 A1).
Harvey et al. (US 9,790,358 B2) is cited herein as an evidentiary reference only.
Regarding claims 1 & 5, Hirose teaches compositions & molded bodies thereof for use with optical lenses (Abstract); said composition comprising a liquid crystal resin and a fibrous filler. The liquid crystal resin composition further comprises a fluororesin (p. 4, [0056]), which may be (poly)tetrafluoroethylene (p. 6, [0079]). PTFE is preferred to enhance molding accuracy, and low molecular weight PTFE (LPTFE) is more preferred as it further reduces molding flowability (p. 6, [0080]). LPTFE is known in the art to have a molecular weight typically in the range of 10,000 – 50,000 g/mol (see Harvey, col. 7, lines 33-38). Hirose is silent on the CF3 & CF2 content as required by the claims.
In the same field of endeavor, Isogai teaches processes for producing stabilized fluoropolymers via treatment with a fluorinating agent (Abstract). A stabilized polymer is obtained by converting unstable terminal groups other than –CF3 to stable terminal groups with the formula: –CF2T, where T may be F (i.e., CF3) (p. 1, [0002], [0009]).
As Isogai teaches unstable terminal groups may cause foaming, generation of HF acid during molding or mold corrosion (p. 1, [0002]) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to treat Hirose’s fluoropolymer, according to Isogai, converting unstable terminal groups to –CF3, achieving improved stability.
When a PTFE with a molecular weight of 10,000 – 50,000 g/mol is employed as Hirose’s fluororesin, the limitation of peak area percentage of CF3 groups to CF2 groups of 0.05% or more is satisfied:
[10,000 g/mol – 2x(69 g/mol per CF3)]/50 g/mol per CF2 = 197 CF2 groups
2 CF3 groups/197 CF2 groups x 100 = 1.01% for Mw=10,000
[50,000 g/mol – 2x(69 g/mol per CF3)]/50 g/mol per CF2 = 997 CF2 groups
2 CF3 groups/997 CF2 groups x 100 = 0.20% for Mw=50,000
The calculated range of 0.20-1.01% falls within the claimed range of at least 0.05%.
Modification of Hirose in view of Isogai as described above results in a resin composition comprising a liquid crystalline polymer & a fluororesin, wherein the fluororesin abides by the peak area percentage of CF3 groups relative to CF2 groups of at least 0.05%, reading on all limitations established by claims 1 & 5.
Regarding claim 2, maintaining the modification of Hirose in view of Isogai previously detailed, Hirose’s composition may further comprise a glass fiber (p. 4, [0058]). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, maintaining the modification of Hirose in view of Isogai previously detailed, Hirose’s composition may further comprise a plate filler (p. 5, [0075]) such as mica or talc. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, maintaining the modification of Hirose in view of Isogai previously detailed, said modification results in a resin composition substantially identical, if not identical, to that which is claimed in the instant application. Thus, the fluororesin will have a decomposition starting temperature of 473°C or higher.
In the alternative, claim 4 establishes a limitation of the fluororesin’s decomposition starting temperature (an intrinsic property of the fluororesin itself). Chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762