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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2002/0155280).
Considering Claims 1 and 2: Yang teaches a liquid crystal polymer film (¶0015) comprising a liquid crystal polymer (¶0015) where the film comprises voids free of the liquid crystal polymers (i.e. a high-density liquid crystal polymer section and a liquid crystal polymer free section).
Considering Claim 3: Yang teaches the voids as being holes/islands in a matrix/sea of polymer (¶0015).
Considering Claims 6 and 7: Yang teaches film as comprising multiple layers of the liquid crystal polymer (¶0044).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2002/0155280) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the evidence of Qin et al. (Polymer, 1993, 34(17), pg. 3597-3604).
Considering Claim 12: Yang teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above. Yang teaches the polymer as being VECTRA (¶0026). Qin et al. teaches VECTRA as having 2,6-hydroxynapthylenic acid structural units (Experimental), which read on Formula (1) where Ar is a naphthalene group.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2002/0155280).
Considering Claim 13: Yang teaches a laminate of a liquid crystal polymer film (¶0015) comprising a liquid crystal polymer (¶0015) where the film comprises voids free of the liquid crystal polymers (i.e. a high-density liquid crystal polymer section and a liquid crystal polymer free section); and a metal layer disposed on the liquid crystal polymer film (¶0044).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2002/0155280).
Considering Claim 14: Yang teaches a laminate of a liquid crystal polymer film (¶0015) comprising a liquid crystal polymer (¶0015) where the film comprises voids free of the liquid crystal polymers (i.e. a high-density liquid crystal polymer section and a liquid crystal polymer free section); and a metal layer disposed on the liquid crystal polymer film (¶0044). Yang teaches film as comprising multiple layers of the liquid crystal polymer (¶0044).
Considering Claim 15: Yang teaches the thickness of the liquid crystal polymer layer as being thicker than the metal layer (¶0050).
Considering Claim 16: Yang teaches that the laminate does not delaminate under peel testing (¶0073), but does not teach the specific peel strength claimed. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the peel strength would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2002/0155280).
Considering Claim 17: Yang teaches a laminate of a liquid crystal polymer film (¶0015) comprising a liquid crystal polymer (¶0015) where the film comprises voids free of the liquid crystal polymers (i.e. a high-density liquid crystal polymer section and a liquid crystal polymer free section); and a metal layer disposed on the liquid crystal polymer film (¶0044). Yang teaches film as comprising multiple layers of the liquid crystal polymer (¶0044).
Considering Claim 18: Yang teaches that the laminate does not delaminate under peel testing (¶0073), but does not teach the specific peel strength claimed. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the peel strength would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2002, 23, 362-365).
Considering Claims 1 and 3: Sato et al. teaches a liquid crystal polymer film (pg. 363) comprising a liquid crystal polymer and polyvinyl alcohol (pg. 363), where there are immiscible domains of the liquid crystal polymer and polyvinyl alcohol (pg. 364). As such, there are liquid crystal polymer rich domains and liquid crystal polymer poor domains where the polyvinyl alcohol is present.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2002, 23, 362-365).
Considering Claim 4: Sato et al. teaches a liquid crystal polymer film (pg. 363) comprising a liquid crystal polymer and polyvinyl alcohol (pg. 363), where there are immiscible domains of the liquid crystal polymer and polyvinyl alcohol (pg. 364). As such, there are liquid crystal polymer rich domains and liquid crystal polymer poor domains where the polyvinyl alcohol is present.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2002, 23, 362-365).
Considering Claim 5: Sato et al. teaches a liquid crystal polymer film (pg. 363) comprising a liquid crystal polymer and polyvinyl alcohol (pg. 363), where there are immiscible domains of the liquid crystal polymer and polyvinyl alcohol (pg. 364). As such, there are liquid crystal polymer rich domains and liquid crystal polymer poor domains where the polyvinyl alcohol is present.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the SP value difference, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849).
Considering Claims 1, 3, and 10: Shohei et al. teaches a liquid crystal polyester film (pg. 2) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (pg. 2) and a filler (pg. 13). As the filler domain would be free of liquid crystal polyester, the film comprises liquid crystal polymer rich and poor domains.
Considering Claim 8: Shohei et al. teaches the film as having a linear expansion coefficient of 0 to 50 ppm/K (pg. 23).
Considering Claim 9: Shohei et al. teaches the dielectric loss tangent of less than 0.005 (pg. 23).
Considering Claim 12: Shohei et al. teaches the polymer as having the claimed structure (pg. 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849).
Considering Claim 13: Shohei et al. teaches a laminate comprising a liquid crystal polyester film (pg. 2) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (pg. 2) and a filler (pg. 13); and a metal layer disposed on the film (pg. 19). As the filler domain would be free of liquid crystal polyester, the film comprises liquid crystal polymer rich and poor domains.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849).
Considering Claim 19: Shohei et al. teaches a liquid crystal polyester film (pg. 2) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (pg. 2) and a filler (pg. 13). As the filler domain would be free of liquid crystal polyester, the film comprises liquid crystal polymer rich and poor domains.
Shohei et al. teaches casting the composition containing the liquid crstyal polymer and a solvent onto a support to produce a casting film (pg. 29-30); immersing the casting film in an aqueous solution comprising water/a solvent having a boiling point lower than the melting point of the polymer (pg. 33) and drying the film to remove the water (pg. 31).
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.
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.
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsuhiko (JP 2942840).
Considering Claims 6 and 7: Shohei et al. teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above.
Shohei et al. does not teach the filler as being at a higher density in the core than the surface of the film. However, Katsuhiko teaches a multilayer liquid crystal polymer film having surface layers without filler and a core layer with filler (pg. 7). Shohei et al. and Katsuhiko are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely liquid crystal polymer films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the surface layers of Katsuhiko in the film of Shohei et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Katsuhiko suggests, to provide small anisotropy in the film (pg. 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Katsuhiko (JP 2942840).
Considering Claim 11: Shohei et al. teaches the film of claim 10 as shown above.
Shohei et al. does not teach the filler as being at a higher density in the core than the surface of the film. However, Katsuhiko teaches a multilayer liquid crystal polymer film having surface layers without filler and a core layer with filler (pg. 7). Shohei et al. and Katsuhiko are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely liquid crystal polymer films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the surface layers of Katsuhiko in the film of Shohei et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Katsuhiko suggests, to provide small anisotropy in the film (pg. 2).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849) in view of Katsuhiko (JP 2942840).
Considering Claim 14: Shohei et al. teaches a laminate comprising a liquid crystal polyester film (pg. 2) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (pg. 2) and a filler (pg. 13); and a metal layer disposed on the film (pg. 19). As the filler domain would be free of liquid crystal polyester, the film comprises liquid crystal polymer rich and poor domains.
Shohei et al. does not teach the filler as being at a higher density in the core than the surface of the film. However, Katsuhiko teaches a multilayer liquid crystal polymer film having surface layers without filler and a core layer with filler (pg. 7). Shohei et al. and Katsuhiko are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely liquid crystal polymer films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the surface layers of Katsuhiko in the film of Shohei et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Katsuhiko suggests, to provide small anisotropy in the film (pg. 2).
Considering Claim 16: Yang teaches that the laminate does not delaminate under peel testing (¶0073), but does not teach the specific peel strength claimed. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the peel strength would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei et al. (JP 2020132849) in view of Katsuhiko (JP 2942840).
Considering Claim 17: Shohei et al. teaches a laminate comprising a liquid crystal polyester film (pg. 2) comprising a liquid crystal polyester (pg. 2) and a filler (pg. 13); and a metal layer disposed on the film (pg. 19). As the filler domain would be free of liquid crystal polyester, the film comprises liquid crystal polymer rich and poor domains.
Shohei et al. does not teach the filler as being at a higher density in the core than the surface of the film. However, Katsuhiko teaches a multilayer liquid crystal polymer film having surface layers without filler and a core layer with filler (pg. 7). Shohei et al. and Katsuhiko are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely liquid crystal polymer films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the surface layers of Katsuhiko in the film of Shohei et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Katsuhiko suggests, to provide small anisotropy in the film (pg. 2).
Considering Claim 18: Yang teaches that the laminate does not delaminate under peel testing (¶0073), but does not teach the specific peel strength claimed. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the peel strength would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767