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.
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) 1, 12, 13, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masatoshi et al. (JP 2002/179669, “Masatoshi” a machine translation of which is provided and used as the citation copy).
Regarding claims 1 and 22 - 24, Masatoshi teaches a chiral helical polymer wherein a bond and a divalent linking group connect first and second planar groups (see [0019], [0020], [0009] – [0018], wherein the compound of structural formula 1 has axial asymmetry). For example, Masatoshi teaches a compound reading on that of presently claimed formula Ia wherein arylene rings are connected via a direct bond and a divalent linking group such that the medial ring may have 7 atoms (see, e.g., [0020], wherein the below monomer is shown and described, wherein R1 may have or be substituted with a halogen). Such a compound has a group corresponding to the presently claimed B1 group may read on one of the claimed divalent compounds (see, e.g., Formula 1, shown below). Such a configuration has first and second planar groups that may be considered phenylene groups.
PNG
media_image1.png
118
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Masatoshi teaches a compound reading on that of presently claimed formula Ia’ wherein arylene rings are connected via a direct bond and a divalent linking group such that the medial ring may have 7 atoms and wherein the arylene groups may further be substituted with a halide (see, e.g., [0020], wherein the below monomer is shown and described, wherein R1 may have or be substituted with a halogen).
PNG
media_image1.png
118
274
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, 5, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakayori et al. (US 2007/0100129, “Sakayori”) in view of Farrand et al. (US 2010/0019199, “Farrand”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 24, 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). Such a configuration has first and second planar groups that may be considered phenylene groups.
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 optical films and polymerics (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 claim 23, modified Sakayori additionally teaches that the group corresponding to the presently claimed B1 group may read on one of the claimed divalent compounds (see, e.g., Formula 5, described in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatoshi, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sakayori.
Regarding claim 5, Masatoshi teaches a chiral helical polymer wherein a bond and a divalent linking group connect first and second planar groups (see [0019], [0020], [0009] – [0018], wherein the compound of structural formula 1 has axial asymmetry). For example, Masatoshi teaches a compound reading on that of presently claimed formula Ia wherein arylene rings are connected via a direct bond and a divalent linking group such that the medial ring may have 7 atoms (see, e.g., [0020], wherein the below monomer is shown and described, wherein R1 may have or be substituted with a halogen). Such a compound has a group corresponding to the presently claimed B1 group may read on one of the claimed divalent compounds (see, e.g., Formula 1, shown below). Such a configuration has first and second planar groups that may be considered phenylene groups.
PNG
media_image1.png
118
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masatoshi teaches that the planar compound should have a twist angle (e.g., [0002] – [0010]) but fails to specifically teach a twist angle as presently claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor of compounds for use in optical application (e.g., in films for use in display devices and for which optical properties are important, see [0110] [0111]), Sakayori teaches planar groups connected by a divalent group having a lean that is from 30 to 40 degrees relative to each other ([0035], [0036]). While Masatoshi fails to specifically teach the lean or twist angle with regard to the planar groups of the above-described molecule, because such an angle is known in the art and because Sakayori teaches that such an angle produced a composition having suitable optical properties for use in display device films (e.g., Sakayori, [0110], [0111]) the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time of filing to have tried such an angle for the composition of Masatoshi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/16/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Farrand is not combinable with Sakayori. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that both are drawn to the field of optical polymeric materials. The Examiner maintains that it 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]).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, claims 1, 5, 12, 13, and 22-24 are rejected as described above.
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 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