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 .
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-27 are currently pending. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-16 and 27 currently amended. Claims 5-6 and 13-14 have been canceled.
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 1-4, 7-12 and 15-27 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.
Instant claims 1-4, 15-17 and 19 recites “ the polymer composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There is no positive recitation of a polymer composition recited in any of the claims. Applicants only have support for a polymer matrix. The claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4, 7-12 and 15-27 depend on claim 1; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/699,691 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending application’691 have claims drawn to a head-mounted display device (see claims 25-27 of the instant claims; see claim 22 of copending application ‘691) comprising a housing that supports the illumination source ( claim 11 of instant claims; “lens assembly with the lens support structure” of claims 1 and 20-22 of copending application ‘691), and the optical display ( liquid crystal display; claim 20 of copending application ‘691) , wherein the housing comprises the polymer composition ( polymer matrix) that contains thermoplastic polymer and the polymer composition exhibits a deflection temperature under load of about 50° or more as determined in accordance with ISO 75:2013 at a load of 1.8 MPa. The projector the instant claims represents the lens of the copending application ‘691. Both the instant claims and copending application ‘691 recite open claim language, “comprising”; therefore, it would have been obvious to include other well-known components in their respective inventions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US 2015/0225547 A1) in view of Nair et al. (US 2016/0053117 A1) as evidenced by トランブレ，エリック et al. (JP 2016-517036 A1 ;hereinafter “Ecole Polytechnique”) and further in view of Kim (US 2014/0264183 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-27, Tu et al. teach ( see abstract, claims, examples, figs. 1-3 and paragraphs [0014-0067]) a portable electronic device 100, which includes a display member 103, such as a liquid crystal diode (LCD) display, an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a plasma display, or any other suitable display [0061] (i.e. an illumination source and an optical display that is capable of producing an image derived from light emitted by the illumination sources). The device may employ a molded part that comprises the polymer composition (examples). The polymer composition comprises a polyarylene sulfide [0014-0023], polyester and thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer [0045-0049] and thermally conductive filler includes mineral particles, mineral fibers, or a combination thereof [0029 & 0042] as well as reinforcing fibers [0029 & 0042]. The liquid crystalline polymer contains repeating units derived from one or more aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acids ( 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 6-hydroxy-2-napthoic acid, or a combination thereof [0048]), one or more aromatic dicarboxylic acids (terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, 2-6-naphthalenedicarboxylix acid, or combination thereof [0047]) and , further contains repeating units derived from one or more aromatic diols [0049] that include hydroquinone, 4,4’-biphenol, or a combination thereof [0049] and is wholly aromatic [0049]. The device contains a housing that includes the molded part [0062].
Further regards to claims 1 and 25-27, Tu et al. do not explicitly disclose the electronic device is a projector for use in a head-mounted display system as instantly claimed or a head-mounted display system comprising the projector as instantly claimed. However, the language “for use in a head-mounted display system” is intended use language of the electronic device. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, 417-418; 277 F2d 197 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to commonly use a projector as the electronic device and include it in a head-mounted display system that includes lenses/frames as evidenced by Ecole Polytechnique ( see figures, abstract, claims and examples) having a polymer composition containing a thermoplastic polymer ( examples).
Also regarding the instant claims , Tu et al. do not explicitly disclose the polymer composition exhibits a deflection temperature under load of about 50° or more as determined in accordance with ISO 75:2013 at a load of 1.8 MPa as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Nair et al. to teach it is well-known in the art to disclose a polymer composition ( see abstract, examples and paragraphs [0005-0067]) which exhibits a deflection temperature under load of about 170°C or more, as determined according to ADTM D648-07 (technically equivalent to ISO 75-2013) at a specified load of 1.8 MPa [0060-0061 and examples]. The melt viscosity of the polymer composition is about 300 Pa*s or less, as determined in accordance with ISO Test No. 11443 at a shear rate of 1000 S-1 and temperature of 370°C, which is at least 20°C above the melting temperature ( examples and [0054-0055]). The polymer composition comprises a polyetherimide [0011-0026] and a liquid crystalline polymer [0027-0036] that includes repeating units derived from naphthenic hydroxycarboxylic acids, naphthenic dicarboxylic acids, or a combination thereof [0033-0036]. Aromatic dicarboxylic acid repeating unis may be employed that are derived from aromatic dicarboxylic acids, such as terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid, 2, 6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid, or a combination thereof [0033-0036]. Repeating units may be employed that are derived from aromatic diols, such as hydroquinone, 4,4’hydroxybiphenyl or 4,4’-biphenol or a combination thereof [0033-0036]. The polymer may be “wholly aromatic” [0035]. The liquid crystalline polymer is aromatic polyester. A filler may be incorporated into the polymer composition to form a filled composition with enhanced strength and/or surface properties [0044-0047]. A filler polymer composition can include a mineral filler and/or a fiber filler [0044-0047]. Tu et al. and Nair et al. are analogous art in the polymer composition field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the polymer composition of Tu et al. to include that the composition exhibits a deflection temperature as taught by Nair et al. in view in aiding in deflection properties.
Further regards to claim 1, neither Tu et al. nor Nair et al. explicitly recite “wherein the polymer matrix comprises a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer in an amount from 70 wt.% to 100 wt.% of the polymer matrix” as instantly claimed. It is noted that weight amount is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. However, Tu et al. recognize that the polymer matrix comprises a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer [0045]. Nair et al. teach the polymer matrix ( composition) comprises a liquid crystalline polymer in an amount of more than about 15 mol% ( see abstract). Nonetheless, the examiner has added Kim et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a liquid crystalline polymer composition ( matrix) including a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer [0037-0051] constitutes from about 25 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the composition (matrix; see abstract, claims and examples) encompassing the instant claimed range in an amount from 70wt.% to 100 wt.% of the polymer matrix in view of aiding in a high dree of crystallinity that enables it to effectively fill the small spaces of a mold. Tu et al., Nair et al. and Kim are analogous art in the field of liquid crystalline polymer matrix ( composition) field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the amount of thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer of Tu et al. in view of Nair et al. from about 25 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the composition as taught by Kim in view of routine optimization and in view of aiding in a high dree of crystallinity that enables it to effectively fill the small spaces of a mold.
Further regards to claims 3, 15 and 16, Tu et al. do not explicitly disclose the polymer composition exhibits an in-plane thermal conductivity of about 1 W/m-K or more as determined in accordance with ASTM E1461-13(2022) and/or the polymer composition exbibits a dielectric strength of about 10 kilovolts per millimeter or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60234-1:2013 and/or the polymer composition exbibits a comparative tracking index of about 170 volts or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60112:2003 at a thickness of 3 millimeters as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that the polymer composition of the instant claims and Tu et al. are the same as recited by independent claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Thus, the polymer composition of Tu et al. must exhibit exhibits an in-plane thermal conductivity of about 1 W/m-K or more as determined in accordance with ASTM E1461-13(2022) and/or the polymer composition exbibits a dielectric strength of about 10 kilovolts per millimeter or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60234-1:2013 and/or the polymer composition exbibits a comparative tracking index of about 170 volts or more as determined in accordance with IEC 60112:2003 at a thickness of 3 millimeters as instantly claimed
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Jin (CN 113604008 A; see abstract, claims , figs. 1-3 and paragraphs [0007-0141]) teaches a camera modules that are particularly adapted to be molded from the polymer composition, said polymer composition comprising a thermotropic liquid crystal polymer and a plurality of mineral fibers, the polymer composition exhibits a deflection temperature under load of about 212.4°C or more as determined in accordance with ISO 75-2 at a load of 1.8 MPa as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s principle arguments are the following:
A) Applicants states that he will consider filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate such ODP rejection over US 18/699,691 when Applicant receives an indication that the pending claims are otherwise in condition for allowance.
A) Therefore, rejection is maintained for reason of record,
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)1-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US 2015/0225547 A1) in view of Nair et al. (US 2016/0053117 A1) as evidenced by トランブレ，エリック et al. (JP 2016-517036 A1 ;hereinafter “Ecole Polytechnique”) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendments to claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn due to claim amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tu et al. (US 2015/0225547 A1) in view of Nair et al. (US 2016/0053117 A1) as evidenced by トランブレ，エリック et al. (JP 2016-517036 A1 ;hereinafter “Ecole Polytechnique”).
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 CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights