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 1-38 are currently pending. Claim 38 has been added as new. Claims 1, 9-10, 18-27, 29 and 31-33 have been currently amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (CN 114507419 A).
Regarding claims 1-38, Xiao et al. teach a liquid crystalline polymer composition for use into various forming body for electronic and electronic connector field( see abstract, claims, example 9) comprising a liquid crystalline polymer resin 67.5 PBW, glass fiber 10 PBW, mica 22 PBW, carbon black (pH =2.7) 1.5 PBW ( 1.5wt.%). The composition exhibiting DF @ 2.5 GHZ 0.003 and lightness 39.
Although Xiao et al. do not specify the claimed dissipation factor, since a composition of matter is claimed, Xiao et al. specifically teaches each and every chemical component as recited in the present 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 composition of Xiao et al. is expected to have the same claimed dissipation factor as instantly claimed. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of each of the components with reasonable expectation of achieving the advantages generally taught therein, absent object evidence to the contrary, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Further regards to claim 38, Xiao do not explicitly recite the pH value of an aqueous dispersion of the carbon black particles at 25°C is from 3.5 to about 8.5 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, Xiao et al. teach an acidic carbon black particles ( pH value of less than 7) . See examples. Xiao et al. specifically teach the same carbon black particle as recited in the present 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 pH value of the carbon black particles of Xiao et al. is expected to have the same claimed pH value as instantly claimed.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recognize that the acidic pH value of 3 (reference) and 3.5 (instant application) are close and therefore would be expected to perform in the same manner. The same results of an aqueous dispersion of the carbon black particles having a pH of 3 as would be expected from an aqueous dispersion of the carbon black particles having a pH of 3.5. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP 2131.03).
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Huspeni et al. (5,492,946).
The claims and examples of Huspeni et al. disclose a polymer composition and the corresponding use thereof said in an electronic device, characterized in that said polymer composition comprises a combination of a polymer matrix containing at least one liquid crystalline polymer inclusive of the present claims, carbon particles such as carbon black, and fibers including glass fibers ( col. 6, lines 1-14) in an amount of about 20 to about 50 wt.% and/or mica ( col. 22, lines 14-34).
Although Huspeni et al. do not specify the claimed dissipation factor, since a composition of matter is claimed, Huspeni et al. specifically teaches each and every chemical component as recited in the present 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 composition of Huspeni et al. is expected to have the same claimed dissipation factor as instantly claimed. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of each of the components with reasonable expectation of achieving the advantages generally taught therein, absent object evidence to the contrary, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ principle arguments are the following:
A) Applicants argue that Xiao fails to disclose a composition exhibiting a dissipation factor less than 0.002 when measured at a frequency of 10 GHz. Xiao is directed to a liquid crystal polymer composition wherein the pH value of the carbon black is less than or equal to 3. It cannot be said that the claimed dissipation factor would necessarily be present in Xiao compositions , because Xiao fails to disclose the surface resistivity of the carbon lack used therein. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patentable over Xiao.
A) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xiao teach each and every element recited in independent claim 1 except the property or function of a dissipation factor. Although Xiao et al. do not specify the claimed dissipation factor, since a composition of matter is claimed, Xiao et al. specifically teaches each and every chemical component as recited in the present 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 composition of Xiao et al. is expected to have the same claimed dissipation factor as instantly claimed. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of each of the components with reasonable expectation of achieving the advantages generally taught therein, absent object evidence to the contrary, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., surface resistivity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
B) Applicants argue not all polymer compositions containing liquid crystalline polymer , carbon black, glass fibers, and mica in the claimed amount will exhibit a dissipation factor less than 0.002 when measured at a frequency of 10 GHZ. Instead, it can be seen that the dissipation factor can be affected by the type of liquid crystalline polymer used and the type of carbon black used. As such , it cannot be said the claimed dissipation factor necessarily flows from the teachings of Huspeni. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patentable over Huspeni.
B) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Huspeni et al. teach the same liquid crystal polymer resin as disclosed by independent claim 1. Also, Huspeni et al. teach the same carbon black particles 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)]. Furthermore, the present application generically and broadly recite a liquid crystalline polymer resin and carbon black particles. There is no mention of any specific liquid crystalline polymer resin and carbon black particle recited by independent claim 1 as argued by applicants. Thus, the composition of Huspeni et al. is expected to have the same claimed dissipation factor as instantly claimed. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of each of the components with reasonable expectation of achieving the advantages generally taught therein, absent object evidence to the contrary, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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