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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, i.e., claims 1 and 6-27, in the reply filed on 18 August 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 August 2026.
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 and 6-27 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a polymer composition that includes a liquid crystalline polymer and that exhibits a Shore D hardness of about 75 or less as determined in accordance with ISO 868:2003” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, in part as the cited “ISO” is an international standard that defines a method to measure the indentation hardness of plastics, and no simple correlation exists between indentation hardness and intrinsic material characteristics. It is primarily intended for quality control and material comparison, rather than establishing fundamental material properties. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed camera module. Claim 6 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “or a tensile break strain of about 1% or more as determined in accordance with ISO 527:2019 at a temperature of 23° C” (emphasis added). Claim 7 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a flexural modulus of about 6,000 MPa or less as determined in accordance with ISO 178:2019 at 23° C” (emphasis added).
Claim 8 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a melt viscosity of about 200 Pa-s or less as determined in accordance with ISO 11443:2021 at a shear rate of 1,000 seconds−1” (emphasis added). Claim 10 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a Charpy unnotched impact strength of about 5 kJ/m2 or more, as determined in accordance with ISO 179-1:2010 at a temperature of 23° C” (emphasis added).Claim 15 is similarly rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a melting temperature of from about 210° C. to about 360° C. as determined in accordance with ISO 11357-3:2018” (emphasis added).
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 and 6-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,163,023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a camera module characterized by comprising a polymer composition that includes a liquid crystalline polymer containing repeating units derived from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Claims 1 and 6-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,759. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a camera module characterized by comprising a polymer composition that includes a liquid crystalline polymer containing repeating units derived from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Claims 1 and 6-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,208,556. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a camera module characterized by comprising a polymer composition that includes a liquid crystalline polymer containing repeating units derived from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Claims 1 and 6-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,640,648. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a camera module characterized by comprising a polymer composition that includes a liquid crystalline polymer containing repeating units derived from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Claims 1 and 6-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,822,254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a camera module characterized by comprising a polymer composition that includes a liquid crystalline polymer containing repeating units derived from 4-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0116878, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 J 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
