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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As presented below, claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Broer et al. and Martini; claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al., Martini and Hammond-Smith et al.; claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al., Martini and Demartin Maeder et al.; claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al., Martini and Takeuchi et al.
The applicant states that “neither Broer, nor Martini, discloses a motivation for combining the two, relating to uniform alignment of liquid crystals and prevention of color unevenness by controlling the surface tension difference in the mixing of inks having significantly different reflection wavelengths” on page 7. The limitations of “uniform alignment of liquid crystals” and “prevention of color unevenness” are not explicitly recited in the claims. The examiner believes that the applicant is arguing that “uniform alignment of liquid crystals” and prevention of color unevenness” are inherent by controlling the surface tension difference in the mixing inks. As such, the combination of Broer and Martini teaches controlling the surface tension difference in the mixing inks, and by inherency, must relate to “uniform alignment of liquid crystals” and “prevention of color unevenness”.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 05/26/2026 regarding claims 1-11 is fully considered. Of the above claims, claims 3 and 10 have been canceled; 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al. (US 2012/0033173 A1) in view of Martini (US 2020/0189303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Broer et al. teach an image recording method (the coating composition may be applied to the substrate with for example inkjet printing technology; the two factors influencing print quality are stage droplet generation and formation of a mono-domain aligned film from these droplets; [0124]; sensor having 11 letters; FIG. 3; original print bitmap and resulting prints; FIG. 4; inkjet printing; [0163]-[0164]) comprising:
preparing at least two inks including a first ink and a second ink (the molecular ordering is controlled by the composition of the liquid crystalline material; [0056]; liquid-crystalline monomers which can be used within the scope of the invention correspond for example to the general formula; [0059]-[0060]; first ink and second ink are different by at least the composition of the liquid crystalline material);
heating a substrate (the nozzle and the substrate are kept at elevated temperatures to avoid crystallization; [0163]-[0164]);
applying the at least two inks onto the heated substrate by using an ink jet recording method (single substrates have been prepared by inkjet printing; one or also multiple layers of the liquid crystal mix can be printed; [0163]-[0164]); and
irradiating the at least two inks with an active energy ray (after printing the solvent is evaporated, the printed sample was placed in a nitrogen atmosphere and was illuminated with UV-light for 30 sec at elevated temperature; [0164]),
wherein in the applying the at least two inks, a mixed region where the at least two inks are mixed together by the applying is formed in at least a part on the substrate (ink jetting is attractive because it allows for easy variation of the composition across the substrate by mixing inks, thus forming sensors for multiple inputs or for a larger range; [0124]),
the first ink comprises a first polymerizable liquid crystal compound (the polymeric layer is generally prepared by polymerizing a composition containing at least one liquid crystalline material comprising at least one polymerizable group; [0056]-[0062]),
the second ink comprises a second chiral compound (alternatively, a chiral dopant can be added; [0065]-[0076]),
a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the first ink is in a range of 380 nm to 490 nm (preferably the sensor changes color by shift of the reflection band to either lower or higher wavelengths by at least 5% of the central reflective wavelength; [0051]; depending on the exact concentration of chiral dopant, a blue reflecting sample or green reflecting sample is produced; [0150]; ink without MAA; FIG. 8), and
a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the second ink is in a range of 600 nm to 800 nm (reference ink 3; FIG. 16; the sample had a central reflection band at 600 nm; [0194]; the sample had a central reflection band at 670 nm; [0197]).
Further regarding claim 1, Broer et al. do not teach a maximum value of an absolute value of a difference in surface tension between the at least two inks is 1 mN/m or less.
Further regarding claim 1, Martini teaches a maximum value of an absolute value of a difference in surface tension between at least two inks is 1 mN/m or less (the one or more surfactants are used, inter alia, to decrease the static surface tension of the ink, which should be lower than about 40 mN/m, preferably lower than about 35 mN/M, mor preferably lower than about 30 mN/m and even more preferably lower than 25 mN/m in order to ensure a good wetting of the substrate and a good drop formation upon ink jetting; [0065]; suggesting for same wetting and drop formation, two inks could have the same surface tension of 25 mN/m, resulting in a zero difference) for the purpose of ensuring a good wetting of the substrate and a good drop formation upon ink jetting.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein a maximum value of an absolute value of a difference in surface tension between the at least two inks is 1 mN/m or less, as taught by Martini, into Broer et al. for the purpose of ensuring a good wetting of the substrate and a good drop formation upon ink jetting.
Regarding claim 2, Broer et al. teach wherein the first ink comprises the first polymerizable liquid crystal compound, a first chiral compound (alternatively, a chiral dopant can be added; [0065]-[0076]), and a first organic solvent (examples of processing solvents are tetrahydrofuran, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, toluene, xylene, dimethylformamide, dichloromethane, dichloroethane; [0075]),
the second ink comprises a second polymerizable liquid crystal compound (the polymeric layer is generally prepared by polymerizing a composition containing at least one liquid crystalline material comprising at least one polymerizable group; [0056]-[0062]), the second chiral compound, and a second organic solvent (examples of processing solvents are tetrahydrofuran, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, toluene, xylene, dimethylformamide, dichloromethane, dichloroethane; [0075]),
an absolute value of a difference between a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the first ink and a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the second ink is 100 nm or more (Figs 8, 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 4, Broer et al. teach wherein in the preparing at least two inks, a third ink comprising a third polymerizable liquid crystal compound the polymeric layer is generally prepared by polymerizing a composition containing at least one liquid crystalline material comprising at least one polymerizable group; [0056]-[0062]), a third chiral compound (alternatively, a chiral dopant can be added; [0065]-[0076]), and a third organic solvent is additionally prepared (examples of processing solvents are tetrahydrofuran, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, toluene, xylene, dimethylformamide, dichloromethane, dichloroethane; [0075]), and
an absolute value of a difference between a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the first ink or a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the second ink and a maximal reflection wavelength of an ink film formed of the third ink is 40 nm or more (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Broer et al. teach wherein the maximal reflection wavelength of the ink film formed of the first ink is in a range of 380 nm to 490 nm (FIG. 8),
the maximal reflection wavelength of the ink film formed of the second ink is in a range of 600 nm to 800 nm (FIG. 16), and
the maximal reflection wavelength of the ink film formed of the third ink is in a range of 500 nm to 590 nm (FIG. 15).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al. (US 2012/0033173 A1) as modified by Martini (US 2020/0189303 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammond-Smith et al. (US 2013/0029169 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Broer et al. as modified by Martini do not teach wherein in the applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 3 g/m2 to 20 g/m2 in the mixed region.
Further regarding claim 6, Hammond-Smith et al. teach in applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 3 g/m2 to 20 g/m2 in a mixed region (wet-on-wet state; [0001]; wherein the first and the second coating compositions overlap in at least one defined area and wherein the first coating composition is still in a wet, unpolymerized state; [0025]; ink jet printing is preferred; [0029]; by varying the mixing ratio of the first and second coating composition on the overlapping area, different reflection colors of the resulting coating may be observed, which may also be optically variable; [0037]-[0042]; total amount of Solution A and Solution B is 5.5 g/m2 in region 4; Table 3; examiner believes the unit is same as in Table 7) for the purpose of achieving more than three different colors in a multicolored coating.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 3 g/m2 to 20 g/m2 in the mixed region; as taught by Hammond-Smith et al., into Broer et al. as modified by Martini for the purpose of achieving more than three different colors in a multicolored coating.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al. (US 2012/0033173 A1) as modified by Martini (US 2020/0189303 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hammond-Smith et al. (US 2013/0029169 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Broer et al. as modified by Martini do not teach wherein in the applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the polymerizable liquid crystal compounds comprised in the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 1.5 g/m2 to 8 g/m2 in the mixed region.
Further regarding claim 7, Hammond-Smith et al. teach in applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of polymerizable liquid crystal compounds comprised in the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 1.5 g/m2 to 8 g/m2 in the mixed region (wet-on-wet state; [0001]; wherein the first and the second coating compositions overlap in at least one defined area and wherein the first coating composition is still in a wet, unpolymerized state; [0025]; ink jet printing is preferred; [0029]; by varying the mixing ratio of the first and second coating composition on the overlapping area, different reflection colors of the resulting coating may be observed, which may also be optically variable; [0037]-[0042]; total amount of Solution A and Solution B is 5.5 g/m2 in region 4; Table 3; liquid crystal compounds by percentage in Solution A and Solution B is 48.4%, resulting in 2.662 g/m2 in region 4; examiner believes the unit is same as in Table 7) for the purpose of achieving more than three different colors in a multicolored coating.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein in the applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the polymerizable liquid crystal compounds comprised in the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 1.5 g/m2 to 8 g/m2 in the mixed region, as taught by Hammond-Smith et al., into Broer et al. as modified by Martini for the purpose of achieving more than three different colors in a multicolored coating.
Regarding claim 8, Broer et al. as modified by Martini do not teach wherein in the applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the organic solvents comprised in the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 2.5 g/m2 to 12.5 g/m2 in the mixed region.
Further regarding claim 8, Hammond-Smith et al. teach in applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of organic solvents comprised in the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 2.5 g/m2 to 12.5 g/m2 in the mixed region (wet-on-wet state; [0001]; wherein the first and the second coating compositions overlap in at least one defined area and wherein the first coating composition is still in a wet, unpolymerized state; [0025]; ink jet printing is preferred; [0029]; by varying the mixing ratio of the first and second coating composition on the overlapping area, different reflection colors of the resulting coating may be observed, which may also be optically variable; [0037]-[0042]; total amount of Solution A and Solution B is 5.5 g/m2 in region 4; Table 3; organic solvent of cyclo-hexanone by percentage in Solution A and Solution B is 50%, resulting in 2.75 g/m2 in region 4, resulting in 2.662 g/m2 in region 4; examiner believes the unit is same as in Table 7) for the purpose of achieving more than three different colors in a multicolored coating.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein in the applying at least two inks, the inks are applied such that a total application amount of the organic solvents comprised in the at least two inks per unit area is in a range of 2.5 g/m2 to 12.5 g/m2 in the mixed region, as taught by Hammond-Smith et al., into Broer et al. as modified by Martini for the purpose of achieving more than three different colors in a multicolored coating.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al. (US 2012/0033173 A1) as modified by Martini (US 2020/0189303 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demartin Maeder et al. (US 2022/0219479 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Broer et al. as modified by Martini do not teach wherein the at least two inks all have a viscosity of 7 mPa·s or more.
Further regarding claim 9, Demartin Maeder et al. teach at least two inks all have a viscosity of 7 mPa·s or more (the viscosity of said inks is 10-3000 mPa s at 25° C; [0024], [0040]) for the purpose of making the inks printable with a wide variety of printing methods.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the at least two inks all have a viscosity of 7 mPa·s or more, as taught by Demartin Maeder et al., into Broer et al. as modified by Martini for the purpose of making the inks printable with a wide variety of printing methods.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broer et al. (US 2012/0033173 A1) as modified by Martini (US 2020/0189303 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 2012/0099054 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Broer et al. as modified by Martini do not teach wherein in the heating a substrate, the substrate is heated to a temperature equal to or higher than 40°C.
Further regarding claim 11, Takeuchi et al. teach in heating a substrate, the substrate is heated to a temperature equal to or higher than 40°C (when the composition for forming the liquid crystal compound layer is applied onto a substrate by a set film forming method, the substrate may be heated or cooled; preferably, the temperature of the substrate is adjusted to 10° C to 60° C; [0255]) for the purpose of preventing disturbing of the liquid crystal compounds before drying and preventing impeding coating.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein in the heating a substrate, the substrate is heated to a temperature equal to or higher than 40°C, as taught by Takeuchi, into Broer et al. as modified by Martini for the purpose of preventing disturbing of the liquid crystal compounds before drying and preventing impeding coating.
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 KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 431-0716. 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.
25 July 2026
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights