DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Buchecker et al. (US 2004/0164272, "Buchecker").
Regarding claim 8, Buchecker teaches a liquid crystal molecule comprising either of the claimed structure ([0006], mesogenic component having structure II, [0010], wherein the A groups may be aryl or alicyclic groups, and may be terminated with an S1 group that is a fluoroalkyl group, such as CF3).
Regarding claim 9, Buchecker additionally teaches the "molecular" end of the compound may comprise a polar group (e.g., group P, see [0015], [0036]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniike et al. (US 2019/0278140, "Taniike") in view of Sung et al. (US 2012/0326172, "Sung").
Regarding claim 1, Taniike teaches a liquid crystal alignment layer comprising first and second sub-alignment layers and being between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate layers (see [0066], [0035], [0036], [0045], Fig. 3). Taniike fails to specifically teach that the bilayer alignment layer has a structure such that the dielectric constant of the first sub-alignment layer is less than that of the second sub-alignment layer. However, such a structure is known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal displays ([0010] – [0015]), Sung teaches a polymeric buffer layer adjacent to the alignment layer and interior from the liquid crystal layer interface should have a smaller dielectric constant than that of the alignment layer adjacent to the liquid crystal layer (see Sung, [0041] - [0044]). Sung teaches that such a construction permits suitable and low effective driving voltages (see [0043]). Therefore, the adjustment of the interior alignment layer so as to have a smaller or lower dielectric constant would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, modified Taniike additionally teaches that the layer corresponding to the first alignment layer may have a dielectric constant of from 2.0 to 2.5 (Sung, [0042]) and the layer corresponding to the second sub-alignment layer may have a dielectric constant of 3.0 (Sung, [0043]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Taniike additionally teaches the sub-alignment layers may comprise polyimides (Taniike, [0035], [0038] and thus may be considered a fluorine-free copolymer).
Regarding claim 10, Taniike teaches a liquid crystal display device ([0003] - [0010]) comprising first and second substrates ([[0066], Fig.3, e.g., layers 80 and 70 which would function as substrates; additional substrates may also be included, [0003]) and having a liquid crystal layer or cell deposited therebetween (e.g., [0066], Fig. 3, liquid crystal layer 60). Taniike additionally teaches a liquid crystal alignment layer comprising first and second sub-alignment layers and being between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate layers (see [0066], [0035], [0036], [0045], Fig. 3). Taniike fails to specifically teach that the bilayer alignment layer has a structure such that the dielectric constant of the first sub-alignment layer is less than that of the second sub-alignment layer. However, such a structure is known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal displays ([0010] – [0015]), Sung teaches a polymeric buffer layer adjacent to the alignment layer and interior from the liquid crystal layer interface should have a smaller dielectric constant than that of the alignment layer adjacent to the liquid crystal layer (see Sung, [0041] - [0044]). Sung teaches that such a construction permits suitable and low effective driving voltages (see [0043]). Therefore, the adjustment of the interior alignment layer so as to have a smaller or lower dielectric constant would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 11, modified Taniike additionally teaches that the layer corresponding to the first alignment layer may have a dielectric constant of from 2.0 to 2.5 (Sung, [0042]) and the layer corresponding to the second sub-alignment layer may have a dielectric constant of 3.0 (Sung, [0043]).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniike view of Sung as applied to claims 1 and 10, above, and further in view of Khew et al. (US 2015/0166894, “Khew”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Taniike fails to teach the thickness of the alignment layers. Sung teaches the interior buffer layers (corresponding to the first sub-alignment layer) may have a thickness on the range of from 100 to 1000 angstroms ([0042]). In the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal displays ([0002] – [0010]), Khew teaches that alignment layers adjacent to the liquid crystalline material may have a thickness of from 10 to 100 angstroms (or alternatively 450 to 1400 angstroms, [0029], [0030]). It thus would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the thickness of the second sub-alignment layers to within this range in order to provide an effective thickness for those layers (Khew, [0029], [0030]). Such thicknesses would therefore satisfy the limitation that the first sub-alignment layer be 2.0 – 4.5 times the thickness of the second sub-alignment layer.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Taniike fails to teach the thickness of the alignment layers. Sung teaches the interior buffer layers (corresponding to the first sub-alignment layer) may have a thickness on the range of from 100 to 1000 angstroms ([0042]). In the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal displays ([0002] – [0010]), Khew teaches that alignment layers adjacent to the liquid crystalline material may have a thickness of from 10 to 100 angstroms (or alternatively 450 to 1400 angstroms, [0029], [0030]). It thus would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the thickness of the second sub-alignment layers to within this range in order to provide an effective thickness for those layers (Khew, [0029], [0030]). Such thicknesses would therefore satisfy the limitation that the first sub-alignment layer be 2.0 – 4.5 times the thickness of the second sub-alignment layer.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniike view of Sung as applied to claim 10, above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2010/0305230, “Li”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Taniike fails to specifically teach that the alignment layer includes a fluorinated component. However, int eh same field of endeavor of alignment films (e.g., [0002] – [0010]), Li teaches that a fluorinated polyimide is well known in the art and can improve tilt angle for a display devices ([0063]) and thus the substitution of such a material for those of Taniike would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Further, the simple substitution of one known element or material for another that would provide predictable results (in this case, the effective alignment of liquid crystal materials) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniike view of Sung as applied to claim 10, above, and further in view of Buchecker.
Regarding claims 17-20, the combination remains as applied above, however Taniike fails to specifically teach that the liquid crystal molecules in the liquid crystal layer include the described structural formulas. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal displays, Buchecker teaches a liquid crystal molecule comprising either of the claimed structure ([0006], mesogenic component having structure II, [0010], wherein the A groups may be aryl or alicyclic groups, and may be terminated with an S1 group that is a fluoroalkyl group, such as CF3). Buchecker describes the liquid crystals as having excellent resistance to humidity, heat, and light and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted them for those of Taniike for those benefits (Buchecker, [0004]-[0019]). Buchecker additionally teaches the "molecular" end of the compound may comprise a polar group (e.g., group P, see [0015], [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while fluorinated polyimides are known in the prior art (see, e.g., Li, teaching that a fluorinated polyimide is well known in the art and can improve tilt angle for a display devices, [0063]), the prior art fails to teach an alignment layer having first and second sub-alignment layers wherein the second layer is provided on top of the first layer and in contact with the liquid crystal layer and wherein the first and second sub-alignment layers are made out of the claimed materials. Further, the prior art provides insufficient motivation such that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have modified an alignment layer having first and second sub-alignment layers wherein the second layer is provided on top of the first layer and in contact with the liquid crystal layer such that the first and second sub-alignment layers are made out of the claimed materials. Therefore, claims 5 and 14 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 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 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights