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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “ a compound A having a partial structure represented by Formula (I)” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by a “partial” structure is not clear. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "partial" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes structures not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "partial"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites each of “in a case where the compound A exhibits liquid crystallinity” and “in a case where the composition contains the liquid crystal compound B” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “in a case” is not clear. Also, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., optionally further comprising a liquid crystal compound B.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “and the composition does not contain a liquid crystal compound B having a structure different from a structure of the compound A” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., containing a liquid crystal compound B having a structure different from a structure of the compound A.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a distance ΔHSP between a Hansen solubility parameter of the antioxidant and a Hansen solubility parameter of the compound A is 10.5 MPa0.5 or less” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “a distance ΔHSP” is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., that the difference between the Hansen solubility parameter of the antioxidant and the Hansen solubility parameter of the compound A is 10.5 MPa0.5 or less. Similarly, claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “a distance ΔHSP between the Hansen solubility parameter of the antioxidant, and an average Hansen solubility parameter of the Hansen solubility parameter of the compound A and a Hansen solubility parameter of the liquid crystal compound B is 10.5 MPa0.5 or less” (emphasis added).
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites Formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
40
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and “* represents a bonding position”;
the scope of the protection sought by “*“ is not clear. Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound A contained in the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., what group each of A1 and A2 are bonded to.
Claim 4 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the compound A is a compound represented by Formula (II)” and
PNG
media_image2.png
60
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; the scope of the protection sought is not clear since claim 1 recites “a compound A having a partial structure represented by Formula (I)”. Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound A contained in the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., the nexus between the compound of Formula (I) and the compound of Formula (II).
Claim 6 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein the compound A is a compound represented by Formula (III) or (IV)” and
PNG
media_image3.png
142
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
159
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; the scope of the protection sought is not clear since claim 1 recites “a compound A having a partial structure represented by Formula (I)”. Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the compound A contained in the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., the nexus between the compound of Formula (I) and the compound of Formula(III) or (IV).
Claim 7 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein at least one of the liquid crystal compounds B is a polymerizable liquid crystal compound” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought is not clear, as there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed liquid crystalline composition containing a “liquid crystal compound B”.
Claim 8 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein, in a case where the composition contains the liquid crystal compound B, a content of the compound A is 50% by mass or more with respect to a total content of the compound A and the liquid crystal compound B” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “in a case” is not clear. Also, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., that the claimed liquid crystalline composition comprises a liquid crystal compound B.
Claim 9 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein Δn of the composition at a wavelength of 550 nm is 0.21 or more” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “Δn” is not clear. Claim 9 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition.
Claim 10 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites “wherein, in a case where the compound A exhibits liquid crystallinity and the composition does not contain the liquid crystal compound B, a content of the antioxidant is 0.01% to 5% by mass with respect to a content of the compound A, and in a case where the composition contains the liquid crystal compound B, a content of the antioxidant is 0.01% to 5% by mass with respect to a total content of the compound A and the liquid crystal compound B” (emphasis added); the scope of the protection sought by “in a case” is not clear. Also, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the contents of the claimed liquid crystalline composition, i.e., optionally further comprising a liquid crystal compound B.
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.
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.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over et al. Goto (U.S. Patent No. 11,390,812).
Goto discloses a liquid crystalline composition and corresponding use thereof said liquid crystalline composition in each of an optically anisotropic layer, optical element and guide element, characterized in that said liquid crystalline composition contains a liquid crystal compound containing a partial structure inclusive of that of the present formula (I), and more specifically encompasses the compounds of the present formula (III), as represented therein by
PNG
media_image5.png
104
787
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(abstract, column 3, line 44+; claims). The inventive composition may further comprise an antioxidant (column 16, line 65). Although Goto does not expressly illustrate the liquid crystalline composition characterized by containing a combination of a compound containing a partial structure inclusive of that of the present formula (I) with an antioxidant, they are each well known in the liquid crystal art, individually as well as in combination, as generally taught therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time the invention was filed to combine the compounds in a liquid crystalline composition, as generally taught therein Goto, with reasonable expectations of achieving, absent object evidence to the contrary, the advantages taught therein the “Summary of Invention” (column 1, line 40+), as well as those associated with their combination thereof.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0353603, which is the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application; U.S. Patent No. 12,054,660, which teaches the compounds of the present formulae (III) and (IV).
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, Anthony J Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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
Prosecution Insights