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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom et al. (WO 2004/065462). Regarding Claim 1, Bloom et al., hereafter “Bloom,” show that it is known to have a molded body (pg 1, lines 5-9) comprising a liquid crystal polymer powder (pg 2, lines 35-36), and a thermoplastic resin (pg 2, line 37; pg 4, lines 18-26), wherein the liquid crystal polymer powder contains fibrous particles including a liquid crystal polymer (pg 2, lines 35-36: pg 4, lines 36-38; pg 5, lines 1-3; powder is considered a fibrous particle since there are particle sizes associated with the powder), and the molded body is a composite of the fibrous particles and the thermoplastic resin (pg 7, lines 5-38; pg 12, lines 4-14). Bloom discloses that the average particle size is 1um (pg 5, lines 1-3), however he does not specifically list diameter size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the particle size of Bloom would indicate the diameter size since diameter is a known size measurement.
Regarding Claim 3, Bloom shows the body of claim 1 above, including one wherein the thermoplastic resin has heat resistance (pg 7, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 5, Bloom shows the body of claim 1 above, including one further comprising an additive (pg 4, lines 27-35).
Regarding Claim 6, Bloom shows the body of claim 1 above, including particle sizes (pg 4, lines 36-38; pg 5, lines 1-3), but he does not specifically disclose an aspect ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a molded body with any appropriate particle aspect ratio, such as that which is claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Bloom shows the body of claim 1 above, including one wherein a content of particles other than the fibrous particles is 20% or less (pg 12, lines 9-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11, and 13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant has incorporated previously-indicated allowable subject matter into independent claims 8 and 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because they are drawn to the claims as-amended, which are different/narrower in scope that the previous version of the claims.
Conclusion
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 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 MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742