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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending in the current application.
Claim 1 is amended in the current application.
Claims 10-12 are newly added in the current application.
Claim 4 is canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Ogawa fails to teach, disclose, or suggest all the recited features of amended claim 1 and newly added claims 10-12, specifically, the liquid crystal compound having at least one of a partial structure represented by general formulae (L1-2), (L1-4), (L1-5), (L3), (L4) or (L6).
Examiner acknowledges. Ogawa alone is insufficient to satisfy the recited features of amended claim 1 and newly added claims 10-12. However, new grounds of rejection have been established below as necessitated by the present claim amendments, where Ogawa is combined with the teachings of newly added Tomi et al. (EP 824141 A1) to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed invention. Tomi teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to utilize liquid crystal compositions comprising compounds of formula (2-4-8) that satisfy the general formulae (L6) and (L6-1) of the claimed invention to yield display devices that exhibit high clearing point, low threshold voltage, small temperature dependency on threshold voltage, and less liability to deteriorate by heat and UV rays with a reasonable and predictable expectation of success (Tomi, Pgs 3, 11).
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 5-12 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 1, 10, 11, and 12, 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], [0088]-[0091], [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; 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), (L4), or (L6) of claim 1; (L3), (L4), or (L6) of claim 10; (L6) of claim 11; or (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 claims 1, 10, and 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_image5.png
95
580
media_image5.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 2, modified Ogawa teaches the compounds represented Formula (2-4-8) are included in amount of 3-55% by mass (Tomi, Pgs 6, 11). 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 (2-4-8) are included in amount of 3-55% by mass (Tomi, Pgs 6, 11). Modified Ogawa’s range overlaps the claimed range of 10% or more by weight, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ogawa teaches the liquid crystal composition comprising the several liquid crystal compounds that include structures depicted by Formula (2-4-8), General Formulae (I), (II-1), and (II-2) above, where Formula (2-4-8) 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]; Tomi, Pgs 3-6, 8-11, 19-20). 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_image6.png
136
264
media_image6.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).
Conclusion
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