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 5-9 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1 and 8 are amended in the current application.
Claim 4 is canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objections over the drawings set forth in the previous office action.
The objections over the drawings set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Ogawa and Zhang, either singly or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest all the recited features of claim 1, specifically, the liquid crystal compound having at least one of a partial structure represented by general formulae (L1)-(L4) or (L6).
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. The grounds of rejection have been changed as necessitated by the present claim amendments, where Ogawa alone renders obvious the invention of the present claims and Zhang is no longer relied upon. Ogawa teaches a liquid crystal layer 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 (Ogawa, [0019]-[0048]). Ogawa’s General Formula (II-2) has a B group that is a 1,4-phenylene group that can be substituted with a fluorine atom attached to a Z4 group that can be a -CH=CH- or a -C≡C- conjugated bond group attached to form a continuous conjugated system that satisfies the general formulae partial structures of (L1) or (L2), respectively (Ogawa, [0019], General Formula (II-2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried 1,4-phenylene groups substituted with a fluorine atom as B groups and -CH=CH- or a -C≡C- conjugated bond groups as Z4 groups from the finite list of options disclosed by Ogawa with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). Therefore, Ogawa teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to arrive at a liquid crystal layer composition rendering obvious the partial structures of (L1) and/or (L2) as claimed with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (EP 2960711 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa teaches a liquid crystal display device comprising in sequence: 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], [0153], Figs 1-2). 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 (Ogawa, [0019]-[0048]). Ogawa’s General Formula (II-2) has a B group that is a 1,4-phenylene group that can be substituted with a fluorine atom attached to a Z4 group that can be a -CH=CH- or a -C≡C- conjugated bond group attached to form a continuous conjugated system that satisfies the general formulae partial structures of (L1) or (L2), respectively (Ogawa, [0019], General Formula (II-2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried 1,4-phenylene groups substituted with a fluorine atom as B groups and -CH=CH- or a -C≡C- conjugated bond groups as Z4 groups from the finite list of options disclosed by Ogawa with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
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)
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Ogawa teaches the compounds represented General Formula (II-2) are included in amount of 25-45% by mass (Ogawa, [0019], [0039], [0154]). Ogawa’s range falls within the claimed ranges (3% or more by weight of claim 2, and 10% or more by weight of claim 3), and therefore, satisfies the claimed ranges (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal composition comprising the several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) above, where General Formula (II-2) 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]). 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, 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]). 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, 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]). 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, Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal composition comprising the several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) above, where 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_image5.png
136
264
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ogawa – General Formula (Ib) & (Ic)
Regarding Claim 9, 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 Ogawa does not explicitly recite no sealing port is utilized, 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 Ogawa’s does not include additional features, such as a sealing port 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