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 1-4, 10-12, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al. (US Patent 4,737,398, published 12 Apr. 1988, hereinafter Ikenaga) in view of Ogawa and Masuda (US Patent Application 2022/0250371 A1, published 11 Aug. 2022, hereinafter Ogawa).
Regarding claim 1-4, 10-12, 25, and 27, Ikenaga teaches a laminated film comprising a metallic film and a polymer layer, in which the polymer is anisotropic in the melt phase (Abstract), that is, the polymer is a thermotropic liquid-crystalline polymer (LCP) (col. 1, lines 12-13). Ikenaga teaches LCP composed of aromatic and aliphatic dicarboxylic acids, aromatic and aliphatic diols, aromatic hydroxy carboxylic acids, and aromatic hydroxy amines and diamines (col. 2, lines 35-46). Ikenaga teaches the aromatic dicarboxylic acid is alkyl or halogen substituted (col. 3, lines 13-27), and Ikenaga teaches some cases, at least a fraction of the hydrogen atoms in bond with a ring may be replaced by a substituent selected from the group consisting of alkyl groups having 1-4 carbon atoms, halogen, phenyl, substituted phenyl, and combinations of them (col. 9, lines 36-43). Ikenaga teaches a polyester amide LCP consisting essentially of 10-90 mole% 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, 5-45 mole% terephthalic acid, and 5-45 mole% of 4-aminophenol (col. 9, lines 9-65). Ikenaga teaches a polyester amide consisting essentially of 10-90 mole% 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, 5-45 mole% terephthalic acid, and 5-45 mole% of 4-aminophenol (col. 9, lines 9-65).
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 three monomers from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Ikenaga because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Ikenaga does not disclose the melting points of his LCP. However, given that the LCP of Ikenaga is comprised of the same monomers/repeat units and in the same relative amounts, within the overlapping ranges, the LCP of Ikenaga would inherently have the melting point as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for melting point.
Further, Ogawa teaches an LCP for a flexible laminate for electronic circuit substrates in which the LCP has a melting point between 200 to 400°C (Abstract and paragraphs 0027 and 0045).
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 melting point from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ogawa because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Given that Ikenaga and Ogawa are drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an LCP with a melting point as taught by Ogawa for the LCP taught by Ikenaga. Since Ikenaga and Ogawa are both drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing an LCP with a melting point taught by Ogawa as the LCP taught by Ikenaga. Further, Ogawa teaches this melting point range is based on heat resistance and processability (paragraph 0027).
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al. (US Patent 4,737,398, published 12 Apr. 1988, hereinafter Ikenaga) in view of Ogawa and Masuda (US Patent Application 2022/0250371 A1, published 11 Aug. 2022, hereinafter Ogawa) and further in view of Onodera et al. (US Patent Application 2015/0195921 A1, published 09 Jul. 2015, hereinafter Onodera) and further in view of Fukada (“Crystallization kinetics and annealing behavior of a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer,” Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, published 1991, hereinafter Fukada).
Regarding claims 16-21, Ikenaga teaches a laminated film comprising a metallic film and a polymer layer, in which the polymer is anisotropic in the melt phase (Abstract), that is, the polymer is a thermotropic liquid-crystalline polymer (LCP) (col. 1, lines 12-13). Ikenaga teaches an LCP composed of 70-80 mole% p-hydroxybenzoic acid and 20-30 mole% 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid (col. 5, line 53 - col. 6, line 8). Ikenaga teaches a polyester amide LCP consisting essentially of 10-90 mole% 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, 5-45 mole% terephthalic acid, and 5-45 mole% of 4-aminophenol (col. 9, lines 9-65). Ikenaga teaches his laminate can be used as an electronic wiring substrate (col. 12, lines 36-40). Ikenaga teaches the inclusion of 4,4’-dihydroxy diphenyl (claim 29).
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 three monomers from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Ikenaga because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Ikenaga does not disclose the melting points of his LCP. However, given that the LCP of Ikenaga has the monomers/repeat units and in the same relative amounts, within the overlapping ranges, the LCP of Ikenaga would inherently have the melting point as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for melting point.
Further, Ogawa teaches an LCP for a flexible laminate for electronic circuit substrates in which the LCP has a melting point between 200 to 400°C (Abstract and paragraphs 0027 and 0045).
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 melting point from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ogawa because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Given that Ikenaga and Ogawa are drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an LCP with a melting point as taught by Ogawa for the LCP taught by Ikenaga. Since Ikenaga and Ogawa are both drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing an LCP with a melting point taught by Ogawa as the LCP taught by Ikenaga. Further, Ogawa teaches this melting point range is based on heat resistance and processability (paragraph 0027).
Ikenaga in view of Ogawa does not disclose the heat treatment of his LCP.
Onodera teaches that the melting point of an LCP can be increased by heat treatment 23° below the melting point of the LCP (283-260) (paragraph 0113), which results in forming the second liquid crystal polymer with a melting point about 37°C higher than the melting point of the first LCP (paragraph 0113).
As discussed above, the melting point of the LCP of Ikenaga in view of Ogawa would inherently be the same as the claimed liquid crystal polymer, and therefore, the heat treatment of the LCP taught by Ikenaga would have the claimed increase in melting point subject to the heat treatment taught by Onodera, which is the same heat treatment as disclosed in claim 16.
Given that Ikenaga and Onodera are drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the heat treatment taught by Onodera on the LCP taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa. Since Ikenaga and Onodera are both drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the heat treatment taught by Onodera on the LCP taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa. Further, Onodera teaches his heat treatment provides high heat resistance by increasing the melting point of the LCP (paragraph 0113).
Ikenaga in view of Ogawa and further in view of Onodera does not disclose the heating rate of the heat treatment taught by Onodera.
Fukada teaches that there is a relationship between melting peak temperature and the heating rate; due to the kinetic effect, a higher heating rate generates a higher melting peak; and below 40°C/min, the annealing effect during the heating process becomes significant, thus, the melting peak increases with decrease of the heating rate (page 121, 2nd full paragraph and Figure 4.9(A)).
Given that Ikenaga and Fukada are drawn to liquid crystalline polymers, 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 heating rate below 40°C/min during annealing as taught by Fukada for the liquid crystalline polymer as taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa and further in view of Onodera. Since Ikenaga and Fukada are both drawn to liquid crystalline polymers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the heating rate taught by Fukada for the liquid crystalline polymer taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa and further in view of Onodera. Further, Fukada teaches that there is a relationship between melting peak temperature and the heating rate; due to the kinetic effect, a higher heating rate generates a higher melting peak; and below 40°C/min, the annealing effect during the heating process becomes significant, thus, the melting peak increases with decrease of the heating rate (page 121, 2nd full paragraph and Figure 4.9(A)).
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 heating rate from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Fukada because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Claims 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al. (US Patent 4,737,398, published 12 Apr. 1988, hereinafter Ikenaga) in view of Ogawa and Masuda (US Patent Application 2022/0250371 A1, published 11 Aug. 2022, hereinafter Ogawa) and further in view of Hong and Economy (“Effect of annealing on the physical properties of biaxially oriented liquid crystalline copolyester films,” Macromolecules, Vol. 28, pp. 6481-6487, published 1995, hereinafter Hong) and further in view of Fukada (“Crystallization kinetics and annealing behavior of a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer,” Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, published 1991, hereinafter Fukada).
Regarding claims 16-23, Ikenaga teaches a laminated film comprising a metallic film and a polymer layer, in which the polymer is anisotropic in the melt phase (Abstract), that is, the polymer is a thermotropic liquid-crystalline polymer (LCP) (col. 1, lines 12-13). Ikenaga teaches an LCP composed of 70-80 mole% p-hydroxybenzoic acid and 20-30 mole% 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid (col. 5, line 53 - col. 6, line 8). Ikenaga teaches a polyester amide LCP consisting essentially of 10-90 mole% 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, 5-45 mole% terephthalic acid, and 5-45 mole% of 4-aminophenol (col. 9, lines 9-65). Ikenaga teaches his laminate can be used as an electronic wiring substrate (col. 12, lines 36-40). Ikenaga teaches the inclusion of 4,4’-dihydroxy diphenyl (claim 29).
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 three monomers from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Ikenaga because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Ikenaga does not disclose the melting points of his LCP. However, given that the LCP of Ikenaga has the monomers/repeat units and in the same relative amounts, within the overlapping ranges, the LCP of Ikenaga would inherently have the melting point as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for melting point.
Further, Ogawa teaches an LCP for a flexible laminate for electronic circuit substrates in which the LCP has a melting point between 200 to 400°C (Abstract and paragraphs 0027 and 0045).
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 melting point from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ogawa because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Given that Ikenaga and Ogawa are drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an LCP with a melting point as taught by Ogawa for the LCP taught by Ikenaga. Since Ikenaga and Ogawa are both drawn to LCP-metal laminates for electronics, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing an LCP with a melting point taught by Ogawa as the LCP taught by Ikenaga. Further, Ogawa teaches this melting point range is based on heat resistance and processability (paragraph 0027).
Ikenaga in view of Ogawa does not disclose the heat treatment of his LCP.
Hong teaches the annealing of liquid crystalline copolyester films with melting points of about 330-335°C by applying annealing temperatures of 320, 330, and 340°C (Abstract and page 6481, 2nd column, Experimental section, 2nd paragraph and Figure 2 and 3). Thus, Hong teaches annealing was liquid crystallin polymers at about Tm-15°C to about Tm-5°C.
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 relative annealing temperature from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hong because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Given that Ikenaga and Hong are drawn to liquid crystalline copolyester films, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the relative annealing temperatures taught by Hong on the LCP taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa. Since Ikenaga and Hong are both drawn to liquid crystalline copolyesters, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the relative annealing temperatures taught by Hong on the on the LCP taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa. Further, Hong teaches his annealing increased the high-temperature dimensional stability of the LCP (page 6486, Conclusions section, 1st paragraph).
Ikenaga in view of Ogawa and further in view of Hong does not disclose the heating rate of the heat treatment taught by Onodera.
Fukada teaches that there is a relationship between melting peak temperature and the heating rate; due to the kinetic effect, a higher heating rate generates a higher melting peak; and below 40°C/min, the annealing effect during the heating process becomes significant, thus, the melting peak increases with decrease of the heating rate (page 121, 2nd full paragraph and Figure 4.9(A)).
Given that Ikenaga and Fukada are drawn to liquid crystalline polymers, 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 heating rate below 40°C/min during annealing as taught by Fukada for the liquid crystalline polymer as taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa and further in view of Hong. Since Ikenaga and Fukada are both drawn to liquid crystalline polymers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the heating rate taught by Fukada for the liquid crystalline polymer taught by Ikenaga in view of Ogawa and further in view of Hong. Further, Fukada teaches that there is a relationship between melting peak temperature and the heating rate; due to the kinetic effect, a higher heating rate generates a higher melting peak; and below 40°C/min, the annealing effect during the heating process becomes significant, thus, the melting peak increases with decrease of the heating rate (page 121, 2nd full paragraph and Figure 4.9(A)).
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 heating rate from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Fukada because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Ikenaga, Ogawa, Onodera, and Hong do not disclose the use of the monomer p-coumaric acid in their liquid crystalline copolyesters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 Jan. 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection, which are presented above.
Applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 16, cancelled claims 5-9 and 13-15, and added claims 21-27.
Applicant argues that Ikenaga fails to teach the first monomer of claims 1 and 11.
However, as presented above, Ikenaga does teach the use of an alkyl and halogen substituted dicarboxylic acid and the use of terephthalic acid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gray et al. (US Patent Application 2013/0085253 A1, published 04 Apr. 2013) teaches a solid-state polymerization system for LCPs. Zhang and Kim (US Patent Application 2021/0070927 A1, published 11 Mar. 2021) teach a liquid crystalline copolyester that contains repeating units derived from 6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid in an amount of about 70 mol.% or more, in which the LCP is annealed at temperatures of 250-400°C, and the monomers may have alkyl and halogen substituents.
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