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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the specific limitation “a preset cone angle along the helical axis with respect to the helical axis” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein a liquid crystal thin film of any one layer of the two or more layered twisted liquid crystal thin films and a liquid crystal thin film of another layer thereof have different shifted broadband reflection bandgaps, when the external stimulus is applied” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the limitation is no longer valid if the external stimulus is not applied. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The specific limitation “a preset cone angle along the helical axis with respect to the helical axis” as presented in claim 1 appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what a “preset cone angle” means. It is unclear whether “a preset cone angle” refers to the angle that twists through from substrate to substrate or from side to side of the filter. Appropriate correction is required.
Being dependent on claim 1, claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (WO 2018/145494).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al. (figures 1-4) discloses a transmissive wavelength tunable hyperspectral filter using layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, wherein
the transmissive wavelength tunable hyperspectral filter is formed by laminating two or more layered twisted liquid crystal thin films having different broadband reflection bandgaps (3 and 4; The spiral direction of the chiral nematic phase liquid crystal (6) in the first adjusting area (3) is opposite to the spiral direction of the chiral nematic phase liquid crystal (6) in the second adjusting area (4), so that the total reflection of an infrared band can be implemented; see at least abstract and figure 4),
wherein each of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin films includes:
a twisted liquid crystal layer including a plurality of unit liquid crystal molecules (3), and formed by arranging twisted liquid crystal complexes defining a preset cone angle along the helical axis with respect to the helical axis (the pitch of the chiral nematic liquid crystal material is rotated by 2π in the direction of the spiral axis; see at least page 4, first paragraph), and
a pseudo-layer formed by arranging a plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers in a lengthwise direction of the helical axis at a preset inter-layer pitch axis (the pitch of the chiral nematic liquid crystal material is rotated by 2π in the direction of the spiral axis; see at least page 4, first paragraph).
“The transmissive wavelength tunable hyperspectral filter is formed by laminating two or more layered twisted liquid crystal thin films having different broadband reflection bandgaps, a twisted liquid crystal layer including a plurality of unit liquid crystal molecules, and formed by arranging twisted liquid crystal complexes defining a preset cone angle along the helical axis with respect to the helical axis, and a pseudo-layer formed by arranging a plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers in a lengthwise direction of the helical axis at a preset inter-layer pitch” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) inherently discloses wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film selectively reflects, among the incident lights, only light of a specific wavelength region through Bragg reflection,
wherein the specific wavelength region is set based on an average refractive index (n) of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film and an inter-layer pitch (P) of a twisted liquid crystal layer included in the corresponding layered twisted liquid crystal thin film to satisfy an equation below (The chiral nematic liquid crystal moves such that the pitch of the chiral negative liquid crystal changes. In the energized state, in the adjustment zone, the polymer network moves toward the negative electrode by capturing cations, and the chiral nematic liquid crystal is dispersed in the polymer network, and the chiral nematic liquid crystal is driven by the polymer network; see at least page 4, second paragraph), and
wherein the inter-layer pitch (P) of the twisted liquid crystal layer is determined by the cone angle of the twisted liquid crystal complex: lambda = np (see at least page 4, second paragraph),
here, n is the average refractive index of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, and P is the inter-layer pitch of the twisted liquid crystal.
The limitation, “the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film selectively reflects, among the incident lights, only light of a specific wavelength region through Bragg reflection, wherein the specific wavelength region is set based on an average refractive index (n) of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film and an inter-layer pitch (P) of a twisted liquid crystal layer included in the corresponding layered twisted liquid crystal thin film to satisfy an equation below, and wherein the inter-layer pitch (P) of the twisted liquid crystal layer is determined by the cone angle of the twisted liquid crystal complex: here, n is the average refractive index of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, and P is the inter-layer pitch of the twisted liquid crystal” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein a broadband reflection bandgap of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film is shifted by a change in the inter-layer pitch of the twisted liquid crystal layer through application of external stimuli, and
wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film transmits only light of a wavelength region corresponding to the shifted broadband reflection bandgap (infrared reflecting device capable of realizing infrared total reflection in a certain band and realizing reflection band adjustment; see at least page 4, 3rd paragraph).
The limitation, “a broadband reflection bandgap of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film is shifted by a change in the inter-layer pitch of the twisted liquid crystal layer through application of external stimuli, and wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film transmits only light of a wavelength region corresponding to the shifted broadband reflection bandgap” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the external stimulus is any one stimulus selected from a group consisting of an electric field, temperature, moisture, bacteria, and light (electrodes 2).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein a liquid crystal thin film of any one layer of the two or more layered twisted liquid crystal thin films and a liquid crystal thin film of another layer thereof have different shifted broadband reflection bandgaps, when the external stimulus is applied (figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the pseudo-layer is formed by arranging a plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers arranged in an interior of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film such that the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers form an inter-layer pitch gradient (The chiral nematic liquid crystal moves such that the pitch of the chiral negative liquid crystal changes. In the energized state, in the adjustment zone, the polymer network moves toward the negative electrode by capturing cations, and the chiral nematic liquid crystal is dispersed in the polymer network, and the chiral nematic liquid crystal is driven by the polymer network; see at least page 4, second paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the pseudo-layer is formed by arranging a plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers arranged in an interior of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film such that the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers form an inter-layer pitch gradient” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) wherein the pseudo-layer is formed by arranging a plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites including one or more twisted liquid crystal layers having the same inter-layer pitch such that the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites form an inter-layer pitch gradient (The chiral nematic liquid crystal moves such that the pitch of the chiral negative liquid crystal changes. In the energized state, in the adjustment zone, the polymer network moves toward the negative electrode by capturing cations, and the chiral nematic liquid crystal is dispersed in the polymer network, and the chiral nematic liquid crystal is driven by the polymer network; see at least page 4, second paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the pseudo-layer is formed by arranging a plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites including one or more twisted liquid crystal layers having the same inter-layer pitch such that the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites form an inter-layer pitch gradient” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film includes: a chiral dopant having a property of being diffused toward a side, on which ultraviolet rays are irradiated; and a photopolymerizable polymer fixing the twisted liquid crystal complexes on the pseudo-layer through an ultraviolet ray curing reaction, and wherein a concentration gradient in the chiral dopant in the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film is formed as the chiral dopant is diffused toward the irradiated ultraviolet rays when the ultraviolet rays are irradiated to an upper end of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, and wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film includes a pseudo-layer formed as the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers are arranged while forming an inter-layer pitch gradient by adjusting a concentration of the chiral dopant such that an inter-layer pitch of a twisted liquid crystal layer located on an upper portion of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film becomes shorter and an inter-layer pitch of a twisted liquid crystal layer located at a lower portion thereof becomes longer according to the concentration gradient of the formed chiral dopant (Forming a first adjustment region and a second adjustment region, respectively, the first adjustment region and the second adjustment region are filled with a liquid crystal layer, the liquid crystal layer comprises a mixed liquid crystal material, and the mixed liquid crystal material comprises a chiral nematic Phase liquid crystal, monomer, photoinitiator and chiral dopant, chiral nematic liquid crystal can reflect infrared light, and the pitch of the chiral nematic liquid crystal material is rotated by 2π in the direction of the spiral axis; see at least page 4, first paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film includes: a chiral dopant having a property of being diffused toward a side, on which ultraviolet rays are irradiated; and a photopolymerizable polymer fixing the twisted liquid crystal complexes on the pseudo-layer through an ultraviolet ray curing reaction, and wherein a concentration gradient in the chiral dopant in the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film is formed as the chiral dopant is diffused toward the irradiated ultraviolet rays when the ultraviolet rays are irradiated to an upper end of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, and wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film includes a pseudo-layer formed as the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers are arranged while forming an inter-layer pitch gradient by adjusting a concentration of the chiral dopant such that an inter-layer pitch of a twisted liquid crystal layer located on an upper portion of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film becomes shorter and an inter-layer pitch of a twisted liquid crystal layer located at a lower portion thereof becomes longer according to the concentration gradient of the formed chiral dopant” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film changes the inter-layer pitch over the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers by applying the electric field to the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film and changing the cone angle of the twisted liquid crystal complex, wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film forms a twisted liquid crystal layer composite including one or more twisted liquid crystal layers having the same inter-layer pitch by irradiating the ultraviolet rays to an upper end of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, forming a polymer network based on the photopolymerizable polymer, and stabilizing the twisted liquid crystal layer corresponding to a partial area of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, wherein some of the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers, other than the formed twisted liquid crystal layer composites, are caused to return to have an initial inter-layer pitch by removing the applied electric field, and wherein layered twisted liquid crystal thin film includes a pseudo-layer formed by arranging the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites while the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites form an inter-layer pitch gradient, through a staged adjustment of electric fields, in which these processes are repeated (Forming a first adjustment region and a second adjustment region, respectively, the first adjustment region and the second adjustment region are filled with a liquid crystal layer, the liquid crystal layer comprises a mixed liquid crystal material, and the mixed liquid crystal material comprises a chiral nematic Phase liquid crystal, monomer, photoinitiator and chiral dopant, chiral nematic liquid crystal can reflect infrared light, and the pitch of the chiral nematic liquid crystal material is rotated by 2π in the direction of the spiral axis; see at least page 4, first paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film changes the inter-layer pitch over the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers by applying the electric field to the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film and changing the cone angle of the twisted liquid crystal complex, wherein the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film forms a twisted liquid crystal layer composite including one or more twisted liquid crystal layers having the same inter-layer pitch by irradiating the ultraviolet rays to an upper end of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, forming a polymer network based on the photopolymerizable polymer, and stabilizing the twisted liquid crystal layer corresponding to a partial area of the layered twisted liquid crystal thin film, wherein some of the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layers, other than the formed twisted liquid crystal layer composites, are caused to return to have an initial inter-layer pitch by removing the applied electric field, and wherein layered twisted liquid crystal thin film includes a pseudo-layer formed by arranging the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites while the plurality of twisted liquid crystal layer composites form an inter-layer pitch gradient, through a staged adjustment of electric fields, in which these processes are repeated” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights