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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are amended in the current application.
Claims 13-17 are newly added in the current application.
Claim 4 is canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed July 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Ogawa and Tomi, either singly or in any combination, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest all the recited features of the amended claims and newly added claims.
New grounds of rejection have been established below as necessitated by the present claim amendments, where Ogawa is combined with the teachings of Tomi et al. (EP 824141 A1), newly added Poetsch et al. (EP 1126006 A2), and newly added Laut et al. (EP 3892706 A2) to establish prima facie cases of obviousness over the claimed inventions.
Although Ogawa does not explicitly disclose a display structure having a color filter disposed between a backlight and a liquid crystal layer, Ogawa teaches a liquid crystal display device comprising: a backlight (not depicted), a first substrate 1, a color filter layer 2a, a liquid crystal layer 5a, and a second substrate 1 (Ogawa, [0016]-[0018], [0088]-[0091], [0153], Figs 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the color filter layer 2a between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer from the finite number of disposition options (namely, option 1: color filter layer disposed between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer; option 2: color filter layer 2a disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the viewing side of the display device) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (EP 2960711 A1) in view of Poetsch et al. (EP 1126006 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 16, Ogawa teaches a liquid crystal display device comprising: a backlight (not depicted), a first substrate 1, a color filter layer 2a, a liquid crystal layer 5a, and a second substrate 1 (Ogawa, [0016]-[0018], [0088]-[0091], [0153], Figs 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the color filter layer 2a between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer from the finite number of disposition options (namely, option 1: color filter layer disposed between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer; option 2: color filter layer 2a disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the viewing side of the display device) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal layer is composed of a liquid crystal composition comprising several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) below; and can include other general, nematic, smectic, or cholesteric liquid crystals depending on the application (Ogawa, [0019]-[0048], [0073]).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
67
283
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
79
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
97
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – General Formula (I), (II-1), & (II-2)
Ogawa remains silent regarding a liquid crystal compound having a partial structure of general formula (L1-2), (L1-4), (L1-5), (L3), or (L4) of claim 1; (L3) or (L4) of claim 10; and (L3-1) of claim 16.
Poetsch, however, teaches a liquid crystal media for a liquid crystal display device comprising a liquid crystal isothiocyanate compound of formula (1) that satisfies general formula (L3) of claims 1 and 10, and general formula (L3-1) of claim 16 with n1 = 0, Z11 and Z12 being single bonds, A11 being a
PNG
media_image5.png
55
102
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, A12 being
PNG
media_image6.png
72
103
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and R1 being an n-alkyl group (Poetsch, [0012]-[0014], [0041]-[0048], Formula (1)).
PNG
media_image7.png
97
473
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Poetsch – Formula (1)
Since Ogawa and Poetsch both disclose liquid crystal compositions for display devices, Ogawa discloses liquid crystal compounds having fluorine substitution, and Ogawa suggests including additional liquid crystal compounds as needed depending on the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least added Poetsch’s liquid crystal isothiocyanate compound of formula (1) into Ogawa’s liquid crystal composition to yield a liquid crystal display mixture that exhibits wide nematic phase range, low viscosity, appropriate anisotropy, and good compatibility with polymer precursors as taught by Poetsch (Poetsch, [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ogawa teaches the compounds represented Formula (1) are included in amount of preferably 5 to 40% by mass (Poetsch, [0041], [0048], [0060]). Modified Ogawa’s range falls within the claimed range of 3% or more by weight, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ogawa teaches the compounds represented Formula (1) are included in amount of preferably 5 to 40% by mass, and in particular 10 to 30% by mass (Poetsch, [0041], [0048], [0060]). Modified Ogawa’s particularly preferred range falls within the claimed range of 10% or more by weight, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal composition comprising the several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by Formula (1), General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) above, where Formula (1) represents a first liquid crystal compound as claimed, and General Formulae (I) and (II-1) represent a second liquid crystal compound as claimed (Ogawa, [0019]; Poetsch, [0011]-[0014], [0041]-[0048]). Modified Ogawa’s General Formulae (I) and (II-1) both have an alkenyl group (R1 for General Formula (I) and R3 for General Formula (II-1)) that does not form a conjugated system as depicted above (Ogawa, [0019]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ogawa teaches the second liquid compounds (compounds of General Formula (I) 30-50% by mass + compounds of General Formula (II-1) 5-30% by mass) are included in amount of 35-80% by mass (Ogawa, [0019]). Modified Ogawa’s range overlaps the claimed range of 51% or more by weight, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ogawa teaches the second liquid compounds (compounds of General Formula (I) 30-50% by mass + compounds of General Formula (II-1) 5-30% by mass) are included in amount of 35-80% by mass (Ogawa, [0019]). Modified Ogawa’s range overlaps the claimed range of 70% or more by weight, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal composition comprising the several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by General Formulae (I), (II-1), (II-2), and (2-4-8) above, where modified Ogawa’s General Formula (I) includes General Formulae (Ib) and (Ic) as second liquid crystal compounds that satisfy (L7) and (L8) of claim 8 (Ogawa, [0026]).
PNG
media_image8.png
136
264
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – General Formula (Ib) & (Ic)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal display device further comprises a sealant (sealing member) placed at the peripheries to attach the two substrates, and therefore, enclose the liquid crystal layer (Ogawa, [0017]-[0018]). Although modified Ogawa does not explicitly recite no sealing port is utilized, modified Ogawa also does not explicitly require a sealing port or discuss including a sealing port. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that modified Ogawa’s does not include additional features, such as a sealing port with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal display device as discussed above for claims 1 and 10. Modified Ogawa teaches the color filter absorbs a specific wavelength of light, transmits another wavelength of light, provide light scattering effects, and allows for elimination of device defects such as screen burn-in (Ogawa, [0088]; [0103], [0156]). Based upon the foregoing, it would have been obvious that modified Ogawa’s color filter reduces light intensity of incident light on the liquid crystal layer with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (EP 2960711 A1) in view of Laut et al. (EP 3892706 A2).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 17, Ogawa teaches a liquid crystal display device comprising: a backlight (not depicted), a first substrate 1, a color filter layer 2a, a liquid crystal layer 5a, and a second substrate 1 (Ogawa, [0016]-[0018], [0088]-[0091], [0153], Figs 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the color filter layer 2a between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer from the finite number of disposition options (namely, option 1: color filter layer disposed between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer; option 2: color filter layer 2a disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the viewing side of the display device) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal layer is composed of a liquid crystal composition comprising several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) below; and can include other general, nematic, smectic, or cholesteric liquid crystals depending on the application (Ogawa, [0019]-[0048], [0073]).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
67
283
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
79
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
97
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – General Formula (I), (II-1), & (II-2)
Ogawa remains silent regarding a liquid crystal compound having a partial structure of general formula (L1-2), (L1-4), (L1-5), (L3), or (L4) of claim 1; (L3) or (L4) of claim 10; and (L4-1) of claim 17.
Laut, however, teaches a liquid crystal media for a liquid crystal display device comprising a liquid crystal compound of formula (1) that satisfies general formula (L4) of claims 1 and 10, and general formula (L4-1) of claim 17 with Y1 and Y2 being -F, Y5 being a -H, and R41 being a straight chain alkyl group (Laut, [0016]-[0023], Formula (1)).
PNG
media_image9.png
114
509
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Laut – Formula (1)
Since Ogawa and Laut both disclose liquid crystal compositions for display devices, Ogawa discloses liquid crystal compounds having fluorine substitution, and Ogawa suggests including additional liquid crystal compounds as needed depending on the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least added Laut’s liquid crystal isothiocyanate compound of formula (1) into Ogawa’s liquid crystal composition to yield a liquid crystal display mixture that exhibits high transmission, good black state, high contrast ratio, good low temperature stability, low threshold voltage, high dielectric anisotropy, fast response times, and low rotational viscosities as taught by Laut (Laut, [0016]-[0024]).
Claims 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (EP 2960711 A1) in view of Tomi et al. (EP 0824141 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Ogawa teaches a liquid crystal display device comprising: a backlight (not depicted), a first substrate 1, a color filter layer 2a, a liquid crystal layer 5a, and a second substrate 1 (Ogawa, [0016]-[0018], [0088]-[0091], [0153], Figs 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the color filter layer 2a between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer from the finite number of disposition options (namely, option 1: color filter layer disposed between the backlight and the liquid crystal layer; option 2: color filter layer 2a disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the viewing side of the display device) with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal layer is composed of a liquid crystal composition comprising several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) below; and can include other general, nematic, smectic, or cholesteric liquid crystals depending on the application (Ogawa, [0019]-[0048], [0073]).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
67
283
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
79
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
97
358
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – General Formula (I), (II-1), & (II-2)
Ogawa remains silent regarding a liquid crystal compound having a partial structure of general formula (L6) of claim 11 and (L6-1) of claim 12.
Tomi, however, teaches a liquid crystal composition for a liquid crystal display device comprising a liquid crystal compound of formula (2-4-8) that satisfies general formula (L6) of claim 11, and general formula (L6-1) of claim 12 (Tomi, Pgs 3-6, 8-11, 19-20, Formulae (2-4), (2-4-8)).
PNG
media_image10.png
95
580
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Tomi – Formula (2-4-8)
Since Ogawa and Tomi both disclose liquid crystal compositions for display devices, Ogawa discloses liquid crystal compounds having fluorine substitution, and Ogawa suggests including additional liquid crystal compounds as needed depending on the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least added Tomi’s liquid crystal compound of formula (2-4) (more specifically of formula (2-4-8)) into Ogawa’s liquid crystal composition to yield a display that exhibits high clearing point, low threshold voltage, small temperature dependency on threshold voltage, and less liability to deteriorate by heat and UV rays as taught by Tomi (Tomi, Pgs 3, 11).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal display device as discussed above for claim 11. Modified Ogawa teaches the color filter absorbs a specific wavelength of light, transmits another wavelength of light, provide light scattering effects, and allows for elimination of device defects such as screen burn-in (Ogawa, [0088]; [0103], [0156]). Based upon the foregoing, it would have been obvious that modified Ogawa’s color filter reduces light intensity of incident light on the liquid crystal layer with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 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 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights