Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 11/4/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-19 are pending with claims 1-12 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as it appears to argue to mutually exclusive things.
In paragraph [0031, emphasis added by Examiner] the applicant states the following: “The smaller the formation index is, the higher the uniformity and the better the formation of the fiber mat, and in the present embodiment, by having the formation index, the fiber mat has the higher the uniformity and the better the formation.”
However, in the Examples paragraph [0107, emphasis added by Examiner] the applicant states even though the formation index is lower it sill has good formation: “Two fiber mats according to Example 2 were produced, and the formation index of each of the fiber mats was 10 or more, specifically, 15.6 or 11.7. In Example 2, although the formation was lower than that in Example 1, a fiber mat containing fine fibers and having a good formation was obtained.”
Given the statement in paragraph [0031] why would the lower index in Example 2 not be expected to have better formation (0031 states lower formation index better formation). It is the Examiner’s understanding of the M/K tester that a higher value indicates better formation.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant claims “formation index” as a property in claim 13. Formation index is measured on a scale of 1 to 100 [see e.g. M/K systems which is the formation tester used by the applicant instant paraph 0096]. Other testers use different scales.
PNG
media_image1.png
116
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This means that every paper sheet ever made or ever will be made reads on the independent claim currently. Even when requiring liquid crystal polymer fibers to be present every sheet made therefrom will meet the formation index limitation of claim 13.
Claim 13 uses the comprising language and therefore any fiber type can be used and multiple fiber types can be used.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2005/0107254 OGINO et al., hereinafter OGINO
As for claims 13 and 14, OGINO discloses a fiber mat (paper) with a formation index of 20 to 40 which falls within the claimed ranges [abstract, 0106]. Instant claims 13 and 14 do not require the fiber to be a liquid crystal polymer fiber. This is not required to instant claim 15. The instant specification makes it clear that the fibers need not necessarily be liquid crystal [instant specification paragraph 0011 emphasis added by Examiner “the fine fibers may be at least part of a liquid crystal powder”. OGINO uses the same formation index scale and tester(M/K) the instant invention [0107].
Claims 13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 4,395,307 KASTELIC, hereinafter KASTELIC, as evidenced by Thermal Expansion properties of organic crystals: a CSD study by LEE et al., hereinafter LEE.
As for claims 13, 15, and 18, KASTELIC discloses making paper (a fiber mat) with fibrils of liquid crystal polymer [abstract]. All papers have a formation index of 100 or less. Formation index has a maximum value of 100. The liquid crystal polymer is a thermotropic polymer [abstract].
As for claim 19, the polymer is highly oriented in the fibril direction [col. 9 lines 20-25] and comprise molecules of 2,6-dioxyanthraquinone [col. 2 lines 65-69]. LEE provides evidence that anthraquinone based polymers have a negative thermal expansion coefficient in one direction and positive in another 2 direction [pg. 8543 col. 2 “anisotropy of thermal expansion” and Figure 5].
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 16 is 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 U.S. 4,395,307 KASTELIC, hereinafter KASTELIC.
As for claims 16, the fibrils (fine fibers) are produced by grinding of fibers [col. 9 lines 6-12] and therefore are a powder and have an aspect ratio of 30:1 to 300:1 which falls within the instant claimed range [pg. 8 lines .] The diameter ranges from 0.5 micron to about 5 microns [pg. 8 lines ]which overlaps the instant claimed range with sufficient specificity or in the alternative makes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 4,395,307 KASTELIC, hereinafter KASTELIC, in view U.S. 4,024,016 GORDON et al., hereinafter GORDON.
As for claim 17, KASTELIC discloses making paper (a fiber mat) with fibrils of liquid crystal polymer [abstract] as per supra. KASTELIC discloses that the polymer of the fiber is highly oriented in the fibril direction [col. 9 lines 20-25]. KASTELIC mentions that the fibers are randomly oriented in the paper sheet and that the paper sheet is made by wet-laying [col. 9 lines 27-35].
This does not suggest that the “main orientation” of molecules of the liquid crystal polymer powder is along an in-plane direction of the mat because the fibers are randomly oriented. This is true for handmade papermaking (dipping hand molds in a vat of fiber suspension) but not for papermaking with a machine which preferentially orients the fibers on a machine direction.
GORDON discloses that a paper machine that orients fibers in a machine direction as compared to the cross-direction [col. 4 lines 65-69]. As the liquid crystal fibers are highly oriented in the fiber direction and the fiber becomes oriented in the machine direction the combination of GORDON and KASTELIC forms a paper with a main orientation of molecules of the liquid crystal polymer along an in-plane orientation. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the forming mold of GORDON to make paper with 1.1 to 5.1 MD/CD tensile ratios [col. 5 lines 14-19] as suggested by GORDON such that specialty papers can be made [col. 4 lines 50-55].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748