DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14, 15, and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/27/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 16 in the reply filed on 1/27/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Farrand fails to teach the claimed polymer is a chiral helical polymer. This is not found persuasive because Farrand appears to teach that its structures enable both left and right handed helices may be formed by the compound (e.g., [0034]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrand et al. (US 2010/0019199, “Farrand”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Farrand teaches a compound reading on that of presently claimed formula I’ wherein arylene rings are connected via a direct bond and a divalent linking group and wherein the arylene groups may further be substituted with a halide (see, e.g., [0190], wherein the below monomer is shown and described).
PNG
media_image1.png
152
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakayori et al. (US 2007/0100129, “Sakayori”) in view of Farrand.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sakayori teaches a polymer compound having a repeating unit having a first planar group and a second planar group (see, e.g., Formula (5), reproduced below, [0034] – [0037], wherein the benzene rings have a lean that is from 30 to 40 degrees relative to each other) and having a bond linking the two groups (see Formula (5) having a bond connecting the benzene rings) and a divalent linking group linking the groups (see Formula (5) having at least one divalent linking group connecting the benzene rings).
PNG
media_image2.png
138
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sakayori fails to specifically teach that the polymer is a chiral, helical polymer, but this configuration is well known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of components for use in display devices (e.g., [0002], Farrand teaches to apply similar compounds in a chiral, helical arrangement in order to effectively create optical polymer films whose optical properties are useful in display devices and are suitably controllable ([0002] – [0010]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adapted the polymer of Sakayori so as to be chiral and helical in order to effectively create optical polymer films whose optical properties are useful in display devices and are suitably controllable (Farrand, [0002] – [0010]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sakayori additionally teaches that the repeating units may be arranged at roughly 180 degrees from one another and may be collinear (see Formula (5) being bonded to the remaining polymer at opposite ends roughly 180 degrees from one another).
Regarding claim 4, Sakayori additionally teaches the compound comprises a second divalent linking group linking the planar groups (see Formula (5) having two divalent linking group connecting the benzene rings).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 9, Sakayori additionally teaches the compound comprises first and second planar groups that may comprise arylene groups that may be connected by a direct bond that may be perpendicular to the axis of the polymer (see Formula (5), above, having benzene planar groups).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sakayori additionally teaches that the polymer may read on the claimed repeating of, for example, formula (III) and (IIIa) (see Formula (5), above, and e.g., [0030] – [0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Sakayori additionally teaches that the material may be used in a display device ([0023] [0024]), and Farrand further teaches to use such materials in a liquid crystal display or layer (i.e., an optical modulator) with electrode layers applied thereon and thus the incorporation of such materials in this type of device would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing ([0002], [0024]).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senthilkumar et al. (US 2018/0066102, “Senthilkumar”).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, and 8, Senthilkumar teaches a polymer compound having a repeating unit having a first planar group and a second planar group (see, e.g., Formula (I), reproduced below, [0033] – [0039], such planar groups are arylene groups and would be expected to be in different planes at least to some degree) and having a bond linking the two groups (see Formula (I) having a bond connecting the benzene rings) and a divalent linking group linking the groups (see Formula (I) having at least one divalent linking group connecting the benzene rings). Senthilkumar additionally teaches that the compounds may be chiral and helical ([0063] – [0066]). Senthilkumar additionally teaches that the direct bond may be parallel with the axis of the polymer (Formula (I), polymeric bonds parallel to medial bond connecting the aryl groups).
PNG
media_image3.png
186
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights