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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026, has been entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1, 2, 5–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0085224 to Hsu et al. in view of Nishikawa et al., “Ferroelectric Nematics – Approaching the Unraveling of the Mechanism of Giant Polarization Order” The Japanese Liquid Crystal Society, Vol. 23(1), January 2019, 25 pages (provided with a translation in the June 4, 2026 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Hsu discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 3 and its corresponding description) a device 20 comprising a volume (e.g., corresponding to area 28 between layers 24/26) comprising ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal-forming fluid (e.g., paragraph [0054] teaches ferroelectric liquid crystal, and paragraph [0101] suggests that the ferroelectric liquid crystal is nematic) and means for containing said fluid (e.g., between layers 24/26), said fluid comprising molecules having one or more electric dipoles (paragraph [0054]), said molecules having spontaneously formed a ferroelectric polarization density (paragraph [0054], “spontaneous polarization from the molecular structure”), said spontaneous polarization density comprising a nonzero local unidirectional average orientation of said dipoles (paragraph [0054], “there is a non-zero in-layer spontaneous dipole moment which is perpendicular to the average molecular direction and to the tilt direction”), and said polarization density comprising a magnitude and a vectorial direction in said volume (e.g., illustrated in Fig. 14A), wherein the device includes one or more electrodes for application of an electric field to said volume, and the electromagnetic field propagates in said volume (e.g., electrodes 11/12; paragraphs [0042]–[0043]).
Hsu does not explicitly disclose said electric field causing said polarization density to change in magnitude, thereby producing a change in the electromagnetic field.
Nishikawa discloses a device similar to Hsu, including a volume comprising ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal forming fluid (e.g. fluorinated liquid crystal DIO exhibiting ferroelectricity, page 38 through page 43; and demonstrating nematic phase, page 37, lower portion of the right column), and teaches that when an electric field is applied to said volume through electrodes, the electric field causes the polarization density to change in magnitude, thereby producing a change in the electromagnetic field (e.g., Figs. 7(b) and 7(c) showing SHG intensity profile when electric field is applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that the device of Hsu would achieve the claimed feature of said electric field causing said polarization density to change in magnitude, thereby producing a change in the electromagnetic field, based on the teachings of Nishikawa, that a similar device under similar conditions exhibits those same characteristics (see, e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein said device includes one or more electrodes for application of an electric field to said volume, and an electromagnetic field to be controlled propagates in said volume (e.g., electrodes 11/12; paragraphs [0042]–[0043] of Hsu), said electric field causing said polarization density to change the vectorial direction, thereby producing a change in the electromagnetic field (e.g., Figs. 7(b) and 7(c) of Nishikawa, showing SHG intensity profile when electric field is applied; and Fig. 6, showing the polarization switching properties).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious the device of claim 1 for thermally generating a charge density, wherein said device includes one or more electrodes for measuring an electric potential or obtaining a current flow within said volume, said electric potential and/or current flow generated by a change in said polarization density, said change of said polarization density produced by a change in temperature of said volume (e.g., Fig. 8 of Nishikawa, demonstrating temperature dependence of the device based on applied electric fields).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein said volume is contained between parallel surfaces (Fig. 3 of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein an electric field is applied parallel to the surfaces (e.g., using electrodes 21/22, paragraphs [0041] and [0081] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein the polarization density is parallel to said surfaces (e.g., Figs. 3, 10A and 11A; paragraphs [0041], [0081], and [0102] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein said electromagnetic field has a polarization parallel to the surfaces (e.g., Figs. 3, 10A and 11A; paragraphs [0041], [0081], and [0102] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein said electric field, said polarization density, and a polarization of said electromagnetic field are along the same line (e.g., Figs. 3, 10A and 11A; paragraphs [0041], [0081], and [0102] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein the electromagnetic field comprises one or more of microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, and x-ray light, propagating in or reflecting from said device (e.g., paragraph [0043] of Hsu, light is emitted under the effect of the electromagnetic field).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious where said ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal-forming fluid comprises dimeric, oligomeric, or polymeric material (e.g., paragraphs [0040]. [0044], [0046], and [0048] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious where said ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal-forming fluid comprises elastomeric material (e.g., paragraph [0114] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious wherein the molecules comprise features suitable for the stabilization of a ferroelectric nematic phase comprising one or more of (1) a rod shape having a molecular long axis suitable for nematic liquid crystal ordering; (2) a substantial molecular net dipole parallel to the molecular long axis, said dipole stabilizing head-to-tail chaining of said rod-shaped molecules; (3) molecular sub-components along the molecular length giving localized charges of alternating sign distributed along said molecular long axis; (4) minimal flexible tails to enable dipolar charges to interact, but provide enough flexibility to suppress crystallization; and (5) lateral groups to control the relative positions along the director of side-by-side molecules, to promote their polar order (e.g., paragraphs [0040]–[0050] of Hsu).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious a method of using any of the devices of claim 1 (e.g., paragraph [0116] of Hsu).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu and Nishikawa in view of Pishnyak et al., “Levitation, Lift, and Bidirectional Motion of Colloidal Particles in an Electrically Driven Nematic Liquid Crystal,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 127802; Sept. 21, 2007 (cited by Applicant in the September 2, 2022 IDS).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa would have rendered obvious the device of claim 1 for producing electrically-driven motion, wherein said device includes one or more electrodes (e.g., 21/22 of Hsu) for application of an electric field to said volume, said electric field causing said polarization density to change in the vectorial direction and/or the magnitude (e.g., Figs. 3 and 13B/C; paragraphs [0041], [0051], and [0102] of Hsu).
The combination of Hsu and Nishikawa does not explicitly teach this change “thereby producing a physical motion of or change of shape of said volume.”
Pishnyak discloses electrically driven liquid crystal, and teaches producing a physical motion or change of shape of the volume (e.g., abstract and pg. 127802-1, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Hsu and Nishikawa such that the change produced a physical motion of or change of shape of said volume, as taught by Pishnyak, in order to achieve additional functionality of the device, as suggested by Pishnyak.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu and Nishikawa in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0007023 to Abrahamsson et al.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa teaches electrodes (e.g., 21/22 of Hsu), but does not explicitly disclose the device of claim 1 for performing mechanical sensing, wherein said device includes one or more electrodes for measuring the electric potential or current flow within said volume, said electric potential and/or current flow generated by change in said polarization density, said change due to a variation in stress within said volume or change of shape of at least a portion of said volume.
Abrahamsson discloses a display for mechanical sensing (e.g., Fig. 1B) and teaches wherein said device includes one or more electrodes for measuring the electric potential or current flow within said volume, said electric potential and/or current flow generated by change in said polarization density, said change due to a variation in stress within said volume or change of shape of at least a portion of said volume (e.g., Fig. 1B and paragraphs [0003] and [0034]–[0039]), as part of a device achieving touch screen capabilities and facilitating user interface functionality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Hsu and Nishikawa such that said device includes one or more electrodes for measuring the electric potential or current flow within said volume, said electric potential and/or current flow generated by change in said polarization density, said change due to a variation in stress within said volume or change of shape of at least a portion of said volume, as suggested by Abrahamsson, as part of a device achieving touch screen capabilities and facilitating user interface functionality.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu and Nishikawa in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,702,636 to Whang.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hsu and Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose where said ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal-forming fluid comprises a glass.
Whang discloses liquid crystals, and teaches that including glass in the composition can improve transparency (col. 5, lines 26–36), provide flexibility, and reduce required operating power (col. 10, lines 20–50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Hsu and Nishikawa such that the ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal-forming fluid comprises a glass, as suggested by Whang, in order to improve transparency and reduce required operating power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights