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 .
This office action is responsive to the Amendment and Remarks filed 23 February 2026. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application, with claims 8-12 presently under consideration, and claim 1-7 remaining withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 have failed to satisfactorily address the rejection of same under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 6 through 8 of the previous office action on the merits.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as respectively set forth in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the previous office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the previous office action on the merits, said arguments to the effect that claim 8 has been amended to satisfactorily address the rejections therein, have been considered, but are not persuasive. Please see paragraphs for additional comments.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 with respect to the objection to the drawings, as set forth in paragraph 3 of the previous office action on the merits, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforementioned objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 102(a)(1) over Shin et al., as set forth in paragraph 13 of the previous office action on the merits, said argument to the effect that the thiol monomers utilized therein do not exhibit liquid crystalline properties, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforementioned rejection has been withdrawn.
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 8-12 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.
Amended claim 8 remains rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites the formulae for the “liquid crystalline soft blocks”, i.e.,
PNG
media_image1.png
105
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by each of the four “ * ” is not clear. Amended claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the recited formulae are for the claimed segmented copolymer itself, or for the liquid crystalline soft blocks contained in the claimed segmented copolymer. The Examiner notes that applicant’s arguments filed 23 February 2026 do not appear to address this rejection.
Amended claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “(L1-Z1) is a bifunctional thiol or bifunctional amine component reactive with X to form the liquid crystalline soft block” (emphasis added), “the liquid crystalline soft block comprises the reaction product of X and (L1 and Z1)” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Amended claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim “liquid crystalline soft block” of the in the segmented copolymer.
Amended claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “(Y) is a bisacrylamide, isocyanate, or bismaleimide component reactive with (I2Z2) to form the hard segment” (emphasis added), and “the hard segment comprises the reaction product of Y and (L2-Z2) and contains thiourethane, amide or linear bismaleimide linkages”; the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Also, the Examiner notes that there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “(I2Z2)”, as well as the “thiourethane, amide or linear bismaleimide linkages”. Amended claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the “hard segment” in the segmented copolymer.
Amended claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “k is the average number of repeating units derived from X within the liquid crystalline soft block and is at least 1” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, particularly as there is insufficient antecedent basis for and much less the scope of “repeating units derived from X”. Amended claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim “k” in the recited formulae, and/or the liquid crystalline soft segment in the claimed segmented copolymer.
Amended claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “m is the average number of repeating units derived from Y within the hard segment and is at least 1” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, particularly as there is insufficient antecedent basis for and much less the scope of “repeating units derived from Y”. Amended claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim “m” in the recited formulae, and/or the hard segment in the claimed segmented copolymer.
Amended claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “n is the average number of repeating soft block and hard segment units in the copolymer chain and is at least 1” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, especially as antecedent basis for the “copolymer chain” is not clear. Amended claim 8 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim each of the repeating soft block units and the hard block units in the copolymer chain contained in the segmented copolymer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9-12 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, assuming arguendo that claim 8 is rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as set forth in this Office action.
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 Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 F 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737