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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 12/29/25. Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhury USPN_9376606_B2 in view of Wu 5625477 and Chang USPA_20170108357_A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Chowdhury discloses a liquid crystal elastomer (Abstract; col 8 In 57-58) composition comprising: a liquid crystal elastomer body configured to comprise a thermal circuit that comprises a heat sink and an electrical component (col 9 In 42-47) wherein the overall composition may be highly conductive (col 2 In 40-43), wherein the composition may act as an insulator (col 9 In 34-38). Although Chowdhury does not explicitly disclose its claimed body having varying transparencies, the Examiner respectfully submits that this would ultimately depend on end-user product specifications. The effecting of varying transparency of the body would be determined on to what extent light is desired to be emitted. Applicants have not indicated how this results in unexpected and surprising properties.
But Chowdhury does not further specifically disclose its directors being oriented orthogonally. Also, Chowdhury does not disclose its LCE body covering the heat source.
Wu discloses a similar composition (Abstract; col 1 In 6-8), wherein elastomers may be coated onto conductive layers (col 12 In 46-49), wherein the composition comprises directors oriented orthogonally (col 5 In 26-29; col 6 In 40-45), and wherein the directors may be easily oriented (col 7 In 56-58). Wu explicitly discloses that the controlled variation of the distribution of these domain directors allows achievement of a continuous variability in the intensity of the reflected light from the display providing what is commonly known as gray scale capability. Both full-color and gray scale capability are available with these devices by simple adjustment of the wavelength maxima for the reflective structure as described previously (col. 5, ln 26-29).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the directors, of Chowdhury, by orienting them orthogonally, like that of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to be able to allow achievement of a continuous variability in the intensity of the reflected light from the display.
Chang discloses an optical module having a light source (corresponds to claimed heat source) and a lid (corresponds to claimed body) that surrounds the light source (corresponds to claimed covering the heat source); wherein the lid is made of liquid crystal polymer and is designed to prevent the light emitted from the light source from directly reaching the light detector (paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the body, of Chowdhury, by using the lid, of Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to regulate light emittance.
Regarding Claims 2-12, 20, and 21, Chowdhury in view of Wu and Chang does not further specifically disclose these limitations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create these limitations through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 15, Chowdhury in view of Wu and Chang the liquid crystal elastomer composition may be at least one of a flexible electronic or display (Abstract; col 3 In 41-45).
Regarding Claims 16 and 19, Chowdhury in view of Wu and Chang discloses a similar composition (Wu: Abstract; col 1 In 6-8), wherein the composition comprises directors oriented parallel (col 5 In 26-29; col 8 In 1-3), and wherein the directors may be easily oriented (col 7 In 56-58).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references, and to create the liquid crystal elastomer composition comprising: a liquid crystal elastomer body configured to comprise a thermal circuit including an insulated body node interface portion of the liquid crystal elastomer body; wherein the insulated body node interface portion contains directors configured to be aligned parallel to an interface edge of the insulated body node interface portion, because directors allow for the continuous variability of intensity of reflected light, which is especially useful in display applications, while allowing for exact precision in doing so (Wu, col 5 In 30-36; col 8 In 30-36).
Regarding Claim 17, Chowdhury in view of Wu and Chang suggests that directors may be oriented perpendicularly (Wu: col 6 In 40'-45), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create the liquid crystal elastomer composition further comprising: a heat sink node interface portion of the liquid crystal elastomer body, wherein the heat sink node interface portion contains directors configured to be aligned orthogonal to an interface edge of the heat sink node interface portion, through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 18, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create the liquid crystal elastomer composition wherein the heat sink node interface portion comprises all of the liquid crystal elastomer body that is configured to contact a heat sink, through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 22, Chowdhury in view of Wu and Chang suggests the liquid crystal elastomer composition may be at least one of a flexible electronic or display (Wu: Abstract; col 3 In 41-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of all claim(s) under Chowdhury in view of Wu have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chowdhury in view of Wu and Chang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 January 15, 2026