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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 3/19/16 have been fully considered and entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 4-20 are canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added as requested. Applicant’s amendments are not found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections previously set forth and for reasons set forth below. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the anticipation and obviousness type rejections set forth in the Action dated 12/19/25. Specifically, the cited prior art does not teach the difference in viscosity between the claimed thermoplastic polymer matrix and the claimed liquid crystal polymer at the extruding temperature. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following obviousness type rejections are set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 is 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.
4. The Examiner maintains that the term “generally” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is not clear in which direction the line of extrusion is. For example, lengthwise, longitudinally, vertical? In addition, the term “sufficiently” in claim 1 is also a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 is further indefinite because Applicants first claim a thermoplastic composite elongate extrudate comprising a thermoplastic matrix and a liquid crystal polymer but then also recite that the extrudate forms a thermoplastic polymer matrix containing fibrils of the liquid crystal polymer. It is not clear to the Examiner how the “extrudate forms a thermoplastic polymer matrix”? Is the thermoplastic polymer matrix (extrudate) different from the thermoplastic matrix used to form the thermoplastic composite elongate extrudate? For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will construe claim 1 to mean a thermoplastic composite elongate extrudate comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix and fibrils of the liquid crystal polymer. Claims 2-4 and 21-24 are rejected for their dependency on claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
5. 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:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-4 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okonski et al., US 20200290269 A1.
With regard to claims 1 and 21, the published patent application issued to Okanski et al., teach a composite filament (elongate extrudate) comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix encasement material and a plurality of elongate thermoplastic liquid crystal polymer reinforcement bodies comprising fibrils aligned in the lengthwise direction along the longitudinal axis of the polymer encasement (abstract and figures 1 and 2). The Examiner is of the position that such a disclosure meets the limitation of “generally”. With specific regard to the difference in viscosity between the claimed thermoplastic polymer matrix and the claimed liquid crystal polymer at the extruding temperature, the Examiner is of the position the claimed difference in viscosities at the extrudate temperature would be expected. Support for said supposition if found in the use of like materials (e.g., the claimed thermoplastic polymer matrix materials and the same liquid crystal polymers as disclosed in the instant specification) and the use of like processes such as forming composite filament (e.g., elongate extrudate) comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix encasement material and a plurality of elongate thermoplastic liquid crystal polymer reinforcement bodies comprising fibrils. It is also noted that Applicants fail to limit or claim the extrudate temperatures. For these reasons, the Examiner is of the position that the claimed differences in viscosities at the extrudate temperature would be expected. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claims 2 and 22, Okonski et al., does not expressly teach the limitation of “wherein the elongate thermoplastic liquid crystal polymer fibrils comprise between about 20 wt.% and about 80 wt.% of the composite elongate extrudate”. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages of the thermoplastic liquid crystal polymer fibrils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claims 3 and 23, Okanski et al., teach that the thermoplastic polymer encasement can be made from several of the claimed materials such as polyamide 6, PA6 or nylon 6 (0019).
With regard to claims 4 and 24, Okanski et al., teach that the liquid crystal polymer may be any aromatic polymer that can transition into and through a liquid crystal state in response to changes in temperature. Okanski et al., exemplify several of the polymers taught in the specification such as the commercially available Vectra® and Zenite® from Celanese Corporation (headquartered in Irving, Tex.), Vectran® from Kuraray America, Inc. (headquartered in Houston, Tex.), and the RTP 3400 series of liquid crystal polymers from RPT Company (paragraph 0026 and Applicant’s specification). With specific regard to claim 24, the Examiner is of the position that these liquid crystal polymers would have the claimed structure of a polymer with a main chain consisting of repeating units of aromatic rings, linked together or with linking organic groups, that can form liquid crystal phases. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights