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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 8-13 in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the office action has not shown the subcombination has utility itself or the other uses. The Examiner’s position is that the subcombination is a retardation plate which can be used in any LCD display to compensate phase change of the light passing through a LC cell, which is well-known in the art (See references in IDS filed by the applicant). Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 8-13 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “[Chemical Formula 3]” as in claim 9 and “[Chemical Formula 4]” as in claim 10 should be deleted. 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 9 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when the claims recite “the compound having a structure represented by formula (1)” as claimed, The base claim 8 requires a compound having liquid crystallinity, which are directed to liquid crystal compounds in the composition that forms the liquid crystal layer (See [0051]-[0054] of present specification); however, none of the liquid crystal compounds as disclosed in the present application having a structure represented by formula (1) as recited in the present claims 9 and 10; the structure of formula (1) in the liquid crystal layer is in fact from an acrylate monomer having methyl-polyethylene glycol chain (see [0083]-[0088] of present specification). A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) (see MPEP 2173.03).
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 should 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 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.
Claims 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirsolaimani et al (US2020/0249475, ‘475 hereafter) in view of Ware et al (US 2019/0077071, ‘071 hereafter).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, ‘475 discloses an optical element comprising a three-dimensional structure having a curved surface and a birefringent material layer reading upon retardation plate curved along the curved surface of the three-dimensional structure (Fig. 2B to 2F, [0004]-[0006], [0010], [0024]); wherein the birefringent material layer includes a liquid crystal layer containing a compound having liquid crystallinity (Fig. 2D and 2E, [0035]-[0045]). ‘475 does not set forth that the liquid crystal layer has a concentration of a sulfur element in the liquid crystal layer being 0.6% by mass to 3.5% by mass. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘071 discloses a liquid crystal composition for making a three-dimensional structure ([0004]), wherein a thiol compound containing sulfur is used as a chain extender to crosslink liquid crystal compound with a crosslinking agent by click polymerization to render the liquid crystal material having desired thermomechanical properties ([0023]-[0025], Fig. 11A, [0059]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfur containing thiol compound as taught by ‘071, to modify the liquid crystal layer of ‘475, to adjust the thermomechanical properties of the layer. ‘071 also teaches that the amount of the thiol compound in the composition can be used to adjust molecular weight of liquid crystal oligomer in the liquid crystal composition ([0059]), thus the amount of thiol compound (or the sulfur concentration as presently claimed) is an effective variable in terms of the molecular weight of liquid crystal oligomer in the composition, which directly affect the thermomechanical properties of the liquid crystal layer formed from the composition. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of thiol compound having sulfur content within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired thermomechanical properties.
Regarding claim 11, modified ‘475 teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but the cited references do not expressly set forth the cracks number of the liquid crystal layer as presently claimed. However, since the prior art fairly suggests a liquid crystal layer being substantially identical to the liquid crystal layer as presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect that the prior art liquid crystal layer having similar properties including number of cracks after stored in an environment of 650C and 90% of relative humidity for 500 hours.
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘475 teaches all the limitations of claim 8, ‘457 also discloses that the optical structure is used to make a lens for eye-box ([0017], [0063]-[0066]), thus it is expected that the curvature radius of the curved surface should be in the range of 10 mm to 100 mm to render the lens having proper focal distance to function as a lens.
Regarding claim 13, modified ‘475 teaches all the limitations of claim, ‘457 also discloses that the optical structure includes a second liquid crystal layer having a slow axis in a direction different from a direction of the slow axis of the liquid crystal layer ([0050]).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sawanobori et al (US 2012/0028193, ‘193 hereafter). ‘193 discloses a liquid crystal composition of an optically anisotropic layer comprising a liquid crystal compound and a compound having a structure represented by formula (10 as in claims 9 and 10 ([0009], [0068]-[0085]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights