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
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/14/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0019] “incudes” is a typographical error and should read “includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term LNM-08, which is a trade name or mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the process “fusion-bonded”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "first main surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 11-17 are similarly rejected by their dependence on indefinite claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the intermediate portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this has been interpreted as “the intermediate layer portion”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohata et al (US 20230002548 A1, priority date 3/6/2020).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Ohata discloses a liquid crystal polymer film (Abstract) used to form a fiber mat [0055] comprising a pair of surface layers (first and second surface layer) and an inner layer (intermediate layer) [0012], wherein the first and second surface layers are in a thickness direction of the liquid crystal polymer film (first main surface) [0022], wherein each of the surface layers contains a liquid crystal polymer (fine fiber) [0012], which is applied as a powder [0025]. The liquid crystal polymer is disclosed to be thermotropic (thermoplastic) [0017]. The liquid crystal polymer is applied using heat (fusion-bonded) [0056, 0057].
Regarding claim 14, the liquid crystal polymer powder includes at least a fiber portion which is a short fibrous particle with an aspect ratio, defined as a ratio of a length in a longitudinal direction to a fiber diameter, is 100 times to 500 times, and having an average diameter of 2 µm or less [0043].
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 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohata et al (US 20230002548 A1, priority date 3/6/2020).
The above rejection of claims 10, 13, and 14 under 102(a)(2) in view of Ohata et al is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 16, Ohata discloses all limitations of claim 10 but does not particularly disclose the density or breaking strength of the fiber mat, nor that it has a density gradient. 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. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Ohata discloses a particular example of a fiber mat with a basis weight of 35 g/m2 [0085]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Ohata discloses an example with a liquid crystal polymer fiber mat thickness of “about 150 µm” [0058]. The specification of Ohata does not provide a specific definition for the term "about". It is well established in the art that “[u]se of 'about' is warning that exactitude is not claimed but rather a contemplated variation. When there is no substantial or material difference in the product, and the difference is colorable, merely, there is in fact literal readability, if proper weight is given to the qualifying word 'about' to amounts significantly lower or higher than the numerically claimed limitation. Kolene Corp. v. Motor City Metal Treating, Inc. (DC EMich) 163 USPQ 214. It is therefore presumed that Ohata’s “about 150 µm” reads on applicant’s claimed 50-100 µm thickness.
In the alternative, it is well established that ordinary creativity is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, to vary the thickness of the fiber mat anywhere within the range of 50-100 µm so long as the desired density is achieved, which thus renders the claimed ratio prima facie obvious. See Ex Parte Jean-Paul Mardon, Jean Senevat, & Daniel Charquet, 101728,237, 2012 WL 1141738, at *2 (2012); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable...is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohata et al (US 20220204848 A1, priority date 9/25/2019) discloses a liquid crystal polymer powder (Abstract) which include a fiber portion having particles with an aspect ratio (length in a longitudinal direction to a fiber diameter) of 10 or more and an average diameter of the fiber portion is 1 µm or less [0018].
Morimoto et al (US 20230416987 A1, priority date 4/14/2021) discloses a fiber mat which is pressed into a liquid crystal polymer film having two surfaces of a liquid crystal polymer (fine fiber) and an intermediate layer of a metal foil [0033], the fibers of the liquid crystal polymer powder having an aspect ratio of from 10 to 500 and having an average diameter of 2 µm or less [0012]. Examples are disclosed of fiber mats with basis weights of about 35 g/m2 [0101, 0103].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights