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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiba et al (Preparation of Cholesteric (hydroxypropyl) cellulose/polymer networks and ion-mediated control of their optical properties, Biomacromolecules, 2006, 7, 3076-3082).
Regarding claim 1-4, Chiba teaches an optically active composition (Abstract) comprises a solvent (water, methanol), a lyotropic cellulose derivative such as hydroxy propyl cellulose (page 3077, experimental section), and a polyethylene glycol (tetra (ethylene glycol) diacrylate). Wherein the polyethylene glycol is present in less than 15 % by weight (page 3077, experimental section). The optically active ink includes a chiral nematic phase comprising the cellulose derivative (Abstract). Chiba teaches that the weight average molecular weight of the cellulose derivative is 15.3 x 104 (153 kDa) (page 3077, experimental section). The hydroxy propyl cellulose is present in the amount from 60-70 wt. %.
While Chiba does not explicitly call the composition an “ink”, given that it is liquid and dries into a film with color, it fulfills the general structure of an ink and as such, the composition reads on that limitation.
Regarding claims 6-7, Chiba teaches that the polyethylene glycol is (tetra (ethylene glycol) diacrylate) (Experimental Section) and this has a reactive functionality which is an acrylate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach the recited molecular weight of the lyotropic cellulose derivative.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Wu reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in paragraph 6 of the office action dated December 18, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: The amount of the polyethylene glycol (DEGMEM) ranges from 23 to 27 wt. % which is outside the claimed range of about 15 wt.% or less.
Examiner’s response: It is not the DEGMEM that the examiner relies on as the polyethylene glycol, rather it is the tetra (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (TEGDA) which is present in a much lower amount. As noted in the argument, the ratio of the DEGMEM, methanol, water and TEGDA is 2/1/2/0.025 and therefore, the amount of the TEGDA is much less than 15 wt. %.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights