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 .
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 10, 11 and 20 are currently amended. Claim 5 is canceled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not presented on a separate sheet. The abstract must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (CN 115872958 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0112132 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9-13 and 20, Du et al. teach a liquid crystal composition as well as a display panel comprising two substrates with a liquid crystal layer in between comprising the liquid crystal composition ( see abstract, claims, examples , and paragraphs [0002-0003, 0060-0062, 0162-0168 & 0176 to 0178]. In example 3 of Du et al. shows
PNG
media_image1.png
888
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which meets the limitation of the liquid crystal composition comprising a first compound (3CYO2) corresponding to formula (I-A) in an amount of 9%, 2CCYO2, 3CCYO1 and 3CCYO2 all corresponds to the second compound represented by formula (II-A) in an amount of 22%, a third compound (3PP2YO2 and 3PP2YO4) corresponding to formula (III-B) and fourth compound represented by (VC4)1OU (S) O2 corresponding to formula (IV) as instantly claimed in amount of 1%.
Further regards to claims 1, 6 and 15, Du et al. do not explicitly the liquid crystal composition further comprises a sixth compound represented by formula (VI) as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Li et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of liquid crystal to include a compound represented as formula IV [0021-0028], more specifically a compound as shown
PNG
media_image2.png
77
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
( see table 5) in an amount of 5% in view of aiding in an intersolubility to a liquid crystal composition ( see abstract, claims and examples), which meets the limitation of formula (VI) as instantly claimed. The liquid crystal composition described in Du et al. and Li et al. are all liquid crystal composition with negative dielectric anisotropy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the liquid crystal composition of Du et al. to include a compound as shown
PNG
media_image2.png
77
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 5% as taught by Li et al. in view of aiding in an intersolubility.
Regarding claim 2, although none of the examples of Du et al. explicitly recite wherein the R1 to R4 can be a substituted group satisfying at least one of the following conditions recited by claim 2, Du et al. recognize the groups may be substituted by one or more fluorine atoms or one or more -CH2- groups can be independently replaced with O ( see paragraphs [0012, 0014, 0030, 0034, 0039, 0044 and 0049]) as meeting one of the condition recited in claim 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify R1 to R4 to be substituted as recognized by Du et al. in view of routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 14, Du et al. teach the liquid crystal composition may further comprises a fifth compound represented by formula (V) ( 3PPI in 1 %; see i.e. Ex. 1 in paragraphs [0172-0173] and Ex, 4 in paragraphs [0179-0180]).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 16, Du et al. teach the liquid crystal composition may further comprises a seventh compound represented by formula (VII) ( IPPP2V in 2%; see i.e. Ex. 2 in paragraphs [0174-0175] ).
Regarding claim 17, Du et al. teach the liquid crystal composition may further comprises an eighth compound represented by formula (VIII) ( 3CCV or 3CCVI see i.e. Ex. 3, 5 or 6 in paragraphs [0177 and 0182-0184] ).
Regarding claim 18, Du et al. do not explicitly teach rotational viscosity ,bending elastic coefficient and a splaying elastic coefficient as instantly claimed. However, Du et al. teach the same liquid crystal composition as recited by independent claim 1. See Examples. However, it is the position of the examiner that those characteristics are inherent. A reference that is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Also, the chemical compounds in the liquid crystal composition of Du et al. and instant claims are the same. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)].
Therefore, one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the rotational viscosity ,bending elastic coefficient and a splaying elastic coefficient should be the same as those instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Du et al. teach a dielectric anisotropy value greater or equal to -5 and less than 0; an optical anisotropy greater than or equal to 0.09 and less than or equal to 0.22 and a clearing point greater than 70°C and less than 135°C ( See Examples i.e. EX. 3 & [0159])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7-14, 16, 17 and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du et al. (CN 115872958 A1) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s principle arguments are the following:
A) Applicants disagree that the combination of Thomas and Du has taught amended claim 1. Applicants believes that there is no motivation for those skilled in the art to combine modify the liquid crystal composition of Du to include Compound I of Thomas. Thomas aims to improve intersolubility of the liquid crystal compound by introducing a cycloalkyl group into a dioxan liquid crystal molecule (i.e. , formula I of Thomas). That is, the liquid crystal composition in Thomas must contain dioxan liquid crystal molecules with a cycloalkyl group (without a double bond). The structure of formula I in Thomas is different from the “structure containing methylene cyclobutane) as limited in claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, the liquid crystal compound disclosed in Thomas does not include the fourth compound as limited in claim 1 of the present application.
Du aims to obtain a larger elastic constant by introducing a compound containing methylene cyclobutene. As mentioned above, Du fails to disclose a compound corresponding the sixth compound. Therefore, Du fails to disclose a combination of the fourth compound and a compound corresponding the sixth compound as limited in claim 1 of the present application.
Therefore, even if those skilled in the art see Thomas, they would not think of , nor have the motivation to combine the compound of formula IV in Thomas with the compound of dioxan liquid crystal molecules in Du. Applicants believes that the Examiner is suspected of hindsight after seeing the present application.
In view of the foregoing, there is no motivation for those skilled in the art to combine modify the liquid crystal composition of Du to include Compound 1 of Thomas.
A) Examiner respectfully disagrees that there is no motivation for those skilled in the art to combine modify the liquid crystal composition of Du to include Compound 1 of Thomas.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Du et al. and Thomas are analogous art in the liquid crystal field. The liquid crystal composition described in Du et al. and Li et al. are all liquid crystal composition with negative dielectric anisotropy.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Examiner has only added Thomas et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a compound represented as formula IV [0021-0028], more specifically a compound as shown
PNG
media_image2.png
77
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
( see table 5) in an amount of 5% in view of aiding in an intersolubility to a liquid crystal composition ( see abstract, claims and examples), which meets the limitation of formula (VI) as instantly claimed. Examiner did not added Thomas to teach a compound represented by formula (IV) as argued by the applicants. Furthermore , the compound represented by formula VI is general and common liquid crystal compound in negative dielectric liquid crystal compositions in the field. Nonetheless, the liquid crystal composition described in Du et al. and Li et al. are all liquid crystal composition with negative dielectric anisotropy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the liquid crystal composition of Du et al. to include a compound as shown
PNG
media_image2.png
77
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 5% as taught by Li et al. in view of aiding in an intersolubility.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., lower viscosity, improving response time of display panels) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained for reason of record.
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 CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737